Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13831
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
ANAS BABU T.T., – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(C)/2125/2020
SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SRI.P.M.MANOJ, SR.GP
Approved appointments of educational staff cannot be denied salary payments based on subsequent claims of staff surplus in other institutions.
Headnote:
Salary - Educational Appointments - G.O.(MS) No. 260/2010/H.Edn, G.O.(MS) No. 93/2018/H.Edn - The court ruled in favor of the petitioners highlighting that their appointments were approved and salaries owed must be disbursed, despite disputes regarding surplus staff in another college.
Fact of the Case:
Writ petitions were filed by Assistant Professors seeking salary arrears after their appointments were approved by the University yet denied due to claims of surplus staff in a different college. The petitioners argued their appointments were legitimate and should be recognized.
Issues: Whether the refusal to disburse salaries based on alleged surplus staff at another college was legally justified and sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that approved appointments cannot be invalidated retroactively due to surplus staff claims and held that salaries owed must be paid to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the release of salaries to the petitioners within three months.
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions are filed seeking directions to the respondents to disburse the salary with arrears to the petitioners who have been appointed as Assistant Professors in English in the Institutions managed by the Muslim Educational Society. It is submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Professors in English pursuant to a selection conducted in the year 2018. Their appointments had been effected by appointment orders and such appointments had been duly approved by the University of Calicut. However, their salaries were denied to them. When the Management took up the issue with the concerned Deputy Directors of Education, a reply was given stating that the appointments could not be approved because there was a surplus teacher working as Assistant Professor in English in the MES College, Marampally and that was the reason for the refusal to pay salary to the teachers who had been appointed in
2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Calicut University and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent College as well as the learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2125/2020 was appointed as Assistant Professor in English in the MES College, Mampad on 08.01.2018 while the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.2160/2020 was appointed as Assistant Professor in English in the MES Kalladi College, Mannarkkad on 08.01.2018. The petitioner in W.P.(C). No.4229/2020 was also appointed as Assistant Professor in English in the MES College, Mampad on 22.10.2018 and the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.1477/2020 was appointed as Assistant Professor in English in the same college on 08.01.2018. All the appointments stand duly approved by the University. When the Management submitted salary bills before the Deputy Directors of Collegiate Education, a communication was issued by the respective Deputy Directors stating that there was a surplus teacher working in the MES College, Marampally as Assistant Professor in English and that the later appointments could be regularized only after the appointments in the supernumerary post in the MES College, Marampally was regularized.
4. The Management submitted a reply stating that there were two posts of Assistant Professors in English in the MES College, Marampally and that two teachers were working against the said posts with due approval and were receiving salary as well. It was, therefore, explained that the appointments of the petitioners made by the Management were proper and legal and that salary was liable to be paid to them. However, in spite of the explanation issued by the Educational Authority, it is contended that no steps are taken by the respondents to release the salary due to the petitioners even in spite of the approvals granted by the University.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the refusal on the part of the educational authorities to pay salary due to the petitioners who have approved service in the educational agency on the ground that there is an excess teacher in one of the colleges is completely illegal and unsustainable. The learned counsel would also contend that there are two approved posts of Assistant Professor in English in MES College, Marampally and that the appointment of the 2nd teacher in the year 2011 against the 2nd post sanctioned by Government Order dated 20.08.2010 was perfectly valid and legal. Government Orders with regard to fixation of workload and the date of effect of the same are produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and relied upon to contend that an excess post could have been sanctioned for 9 hours of work even till the date of Ext.P9 Government Order dated 09.05.2018. It is contended that the appointments in the MES College, Marampally were made in 1996 and 2011 respectively and were on the basis of the orders issued by the Government allowing two posts and that as such they were perfectly valid.
6.
