Approval for teaching positions must adhere to prescribed workload assessments and cannot be arbitrarily denied by educational authorities.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor in Commerce as per Ext.P1 order in MES Keveeyam College, Valanchery, and he has been working there from 26.2.2013 onwards. The University of Calicut issued orders approving the appointment of the petitioner as per Ext.P2 order w.e.f 26.2.2013, on the basis of the decision of the syndicate. Even though approval was granted, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education did not countersign the first salary bill for December, 2014, saying that there was only 61 hours of work for Commerce and sufficient number of hours of work are not available.

2. The petitioner points out that as per Ext.P4 statement of reassessment, the workload in Commerce in the College, for the year 2001- 2002 was assessed in a post adalat review and it was found to be 61 hours, sanctioning 4 full time post of teachers and a part-time teacher for law. The petitioner further points out that at the time when the assessment was made leading to Ext.P4 statement of workload, the Principal was also in the Department of Commerce and on his retirement in 2005 the number of post available would be more. It is also pointed out that the post of Part-time Teacher in Law is remaining vacant since June, 2013. The Deputy Director of Collegiate Education is of the view that there should be 5 hours set apart for the Part-time Lecturer in Law; whereas the University has assessed 4 hours for the Part-time teacher.

3. However, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P(c).

No.10743/2015 challenging Ext.P3 order, aggrieved by nonpayment of salary. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing the 3rd respondent to honour the salary bill of the petitioner. It was also directed that the 3rd respondent shall conduct an enquiry into the matter as to whether the approval granted by the University was in accordance with the relevant procedure. The Principal was also directed to co-operate with the enquiry furnishing the necessary details to the 3rd respondent. It was further directed that in case in the enquiry approval was found to be legal, the entire arrears of salary shall be disbursed to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education issued Ext.P10 order and declined the approval saying that there is already 4 teachers including the part-time hand.

It is stated that he was taking up the matter with the University. Thereafter, the Registrar of the University issued Ext.P11 order directing the Deputy Director to reconsider his request saying that approval was in order. This writ petition was filed at this stage.

4. It is seen that the educational authorities - respondents 1 to 3 have not taken up any proceedings for challenging the order Ext.P11 issued on 16.7.2015 so far. In the counter affidavit filed also it is stated that the total number of hours for the subject Commerce is 61, but 5 hours have to be set apart for Part-time Law Teacher. The case of the petitioner as well as the University is that the number of hours of teaching to be set apart for the Part-time Teacher in Law is only 4. In that case the remaining 57 hours has to be set apart for the full time teachers when there would be 3 full time teachers with an excess of 9 hours left. As per the provisions contained in the University Ordinance there can be an additional post in case the left over period is 9 hours or more. In that event the appointment of the petitioner would be against a post admissible.

5. At any rate, since respondents 1 to 3 have not taken up the matter further, as against the orders issued by the University, there is no justification in denying salary to the petitioner.

In the above circumstances, Ext.P10 order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner and to grant him all the consequential benefits including arrears of salary within a period of three months.