MARY LINSA K.S. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is a post graduate in Physics, was appointed as Assistant Professor (Physics) at the St. Teresa's College, Ernakulam with effect from 20.09.2010. The said appointment was approved by the Mahatma Gandhi University to which the said College was affiliated. Thereafter, the petitioner secured appointment as an Assistant Professor (Physics) at St. Joseph's College for Women, Alappuzha by Ext. P2 order dated 30.06.2012. The appointment was made effective from 4.7.2012 and the said appointment was also approved by the 3rd respondent University by Ext. P3 order dated 8.11.2012. The petitioner continued in the said post till 16.8.2013, on which date she was relieved from the 4th respondent College for taking up an appointment as Assistant Professor in the Government Polytechnic College, Kottayam. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is with regard to the non -disbursal of salary due to her for the period from 4.7.212 to 16.8.2013 when she was working as an Assistant Professor of Physics at the 4th respondent College in a post, the appointment to which had been approved by the 3rd respondent University by Ext. P3 order. The non -disbursal of salary to the petitioner is stated to be on account of the fact that the 2nd respondent raised an objection that the workload available in the College justified the retention of only 8 teachers during the period in question and the petitioner was functioning in the 4th respondent College as the 9th teacher.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. Therein, reference is made to Ext. R4(a) order issued by the 3rd respondent University which indicates that the University had assessed the workload in the 4th respondent College for the academic year 2011 -12 and found that the workload justified the retention of nine teachers in the subject of Physics. The workload was determined as 138 hours for the said period. Ext. R4(b) communication dated 14.3.2011 of the 2nd respondent is also relied upon to show that, even prior to the assessment of the workload by the 3rd respondent University by Ext. R4(a) order, the 2nd respondent itself had accepted that there was a workload of 138 hours for the subject Physics at the 4th respondent's College. In the statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, reference is made to Annexure R2(a) order whereby the 4th respondent was directed to ensure compliance with the applicable Government Orders while filling up one post of Assistant Professor in Physics. Reliance on the said document is placed to indicate that the 2nd respondent had assessed the workload in the 4th respondent College as justifying only the retention of one teacher in the post of Physics and not two as found by the University. It is pointed out that the appointment of two teachers including the petitioner by the 4th respondent College was irregular and the clarifications were sought from the 3rd respondent University with regard to the actual workload that was applicable for the subject of Physics in the 4th respondent College during the academic year in question.

(3.) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I feel that the writ petition must succeed. This is a case where the petitioner seeks a payment of salary for the period from 4.7.2012 to 16.8.2013 when she was working as Assistant Professor at the 4th respondent College pursuant to an appointment to the said post which was approved by the 3rd respondent University. Ext. R4(a) order of the 3rd respondent University would unambiguously indicate that there was an assessment of the workload at the 4th respondent College that was done by the 3rd respondent University and that, pursuant to such assessment, it was found that there was a requirement of nine teachers in the subject Physics for the academic year 2011 -12. The said assessment of workload, and the sanctioning of post of teachers corresponding thereto, has not been varied or modified by the 3rd respondent University. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that on its assessment of the workload, the number of teachers that can be appointed in the subject Physics during the academic year in question was only eight and not nine as assessed by the 3rd respondent University. I would think that in the context of the Kerala University (Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of Non -Teaching Staff) First Statutes 1979, it is for the University to assess the workload and determine the staff strength in any subject in a College affiliated to the said University. If the State Government, as the person responsible for paying salary to the teachers, has any doubts with regard to the assessment of workload and consequent fixation of staff strength done by the University, it is for the Government to take up the matter with the University and obtain suitable clarifications. If the University maintains, as it does in this case, that there is nothing to be varied or modified in the order already passed by it assessing the workload and fixing the staff strength, then the Government really has no further role to play in the matter and must necessarily make the payment of salary in accordance with the workload assessed and the staff strength fixed by the University. This position in law has been noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College [2007 [3] KLT 355], wherein, at paragraph 9, it is stated as follows: