Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22515
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
ARUN GEORGE – Respondent
WA 2529 2005
MR. K.K. RAVINDRANATH, MR.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.BABU VARGHESE, SMT.MANJU ANTONEY, MR.T.J.THOMAS (ALUVA), MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, S.C, M.G.UNIVERSITY
Unilateral conditions imposed by the government in breach of statutory obligations in educational agreements are deemed illegal and unenforceable.
Headnote:
Direct Payment - Educational Appointments - Pre-Degree (Abolition) Act 1977 - G.O.(Ms) No.134/98/H.Edn., G.O.(Ms) No.162/99/H.Edn. - Court emphasized that statutory obligations under the Direct Payment Agreement cannot be circumvented by unilateral government conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appointment of lecturers in private aided colleges under government orders sanctioning new courses without additional financial commitments. The government rejected the approval of their appointments, asserting the pre-existing appointment ban under the Pre-Degree (Abolition) Act was still in force, leading the lecturers to seek validation of their appointments.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the conditions imposed by the government on courses sanctioned were illegal and violated the Direct Payment Agreement, thus the government was obligated to honor its commitments and approve the lecturers' appointments.
Issues: The central issue was whether the courses sanctioned were aided or unaided, impacting if the government had a duty to fund salaries under the Direct Payment Agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once courses were declared aided, all obligations under the Direct Payment Agreement became applicable, making any unilateral conditions by the government illegal.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, confirming the lecturers' rights to salary and appointment approval under the Direct Payment Agreement.
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J
The issue arising in these cases being common, the cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. W.A.No.2529 of 2005 is treated as the leading case and the pleadings in that case, along with the pleadings and documents in R.P.No.101/08 are referred to, for convenience.
3. This appeal filed by the State of Kerala and others, arises from the judgment of the Learned Single Judge in WPC 482 of 2005. Since the matter is being reconsidered consequent on our order in RP Nos.101 of 2008 and 180 of 2008, in which several additional documents have been produced and affidavits filed, we consider it only appropriate that the facts and the documents are referred to in detail.
4. Respondents 1 to 7 are Lecturers appointed by the 8th respondent, the Manager, Malankara Orthodox Church Colleges, who is the Manager of Catholicate College, Pathanamthitta, Baselious College, Kottayam and K.G. College, th Pambady. According to 8 respondent by Ext.P2, G.O.(Ms) No.134/98/H.Edn. dated 09.11.1998 and Ext.P2(a), G.O. (Ms) No. 162/99/H.Edn., dated 06.12.1999, in order to accommodate lecturers rendered surplus due to delinking of Pre-degree courses from Colleges, the Government accorded sanction for starting the new courses mentioned in the Appendix to the aforesaid Government orders during the academic years 1998-99 and 1999-00 respectively. Ext.P2, provided that the sanction was subject to the condition that there will be no additional financial commitment on the part of Government and Ext.P2(a) provided that the expenditure will not exceed the budget allotment for the purpose on any account. Respondents 1 to 8 submit that as per the aforesaid orders, the Catholicate College, Pathanamthitta was sanctioned PG courses in English, Physics and Chemistry and Baselious College, Kottayam was sanctioned PG Courses in Physics and Economics and that in the K.G. College, Pampadi, PG course in Commerce was sanctioned. Thereafter, the University issued Exts.P3 and P3(a), conveying sanction of the Vice Chancellor subject to ratification by the Syndicate granting affiliation to the courses, clarifying that the same was without any additional financial commitment to the University/ Government.
5. The University thereafter issued Annexures A13, 13A and 13B orders, fixing staff pattern of the aforesaid colleges. The courses sanctioned as per Exts.P2, P2(a) and Annexure A3 led to increase in the work load. Accordingly, in terms of the provisions contained in the University Statutes and the Direct Payment Agreement , proceedings for filling up the vacancies were initiated and statutory selection committees were constituted, by including the representatives of the Government and the University. Accordingly, selection was conducted and Respondents 1 to 7 were appointed as Lecturers in the aforesaid three colleges. Exts.P1(a) to P1(f) are the orders of appointment, which show that petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed with effect from 01.07.2002, petitioners 3 to 6 were appointed with effect from 07.01.2002 and the 7th petitioner was appointed with effect from 10.07.2002.
6. Subsequently, Ext.P4, proposals submitted to the University for approval of the appointments made was rejected by Ext.P4(a) on the ground, that the ban of fresh appointment imposed as per the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Pre-Degree (Abolition) Act 1977 was still in force. It is stated that the ban imposed as above was for a period of 3 years from 03.06.1997 and expired on 02.06.2000 and that even after the said period, additional posts, commensurate with work load, were not sanctioned or appointments approved. In st such circumstances, the 1 petitioner in RP No.180 of 2008, the Kerala Private College Managements Association and the 8th respondent herein, filed OP No.21268 of 2002 before this Court. The original petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment, holding that after the expiry of the period when statutory ban created under Section 5 wa
