DEVASSY MANJOORAN Vs. SIVARAMAKRISHNA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by Sri Devassy Manjooran, Professor, Nirmala College, Muvattupuzha prays for action in contempt being taken against Sri. Sivaramakrishna Iyer, Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, Central Zone for flouting the direction issued by this court in C. M. P. 4877 in O. P. 1491 of 1973.

(2.) Sri Devassy Manjooran was appointed Additional Professor in Nirmala College with effect from 1-3-1972 on a scale of pay of Rs. 700-1000. The appointment was reported to the University as required by S.53(10) of the Kerala University Act, 1969. His salary was paid by the management till September, 1972. Thereafter in consequence of agreements concluded between the Government on the one hand and the private management on the other, payment of salary to teachers of private colleges was undertaken by the Government with effect from the 1st September, 1972. In the meantime, the Registrar of the University took objection to the appointment of the petitioner as Additional Professor, as according to him there was no such post sanctioned by the University and no provision was made by the government for grant of aid of such a post. In view of this, the Principal refused to present the petitioner's pay bill as Additional Professor. It was under these circumstances that O. P. 1491/73 was filed by him in this court under Art.226 of the Constitution for necessary reliefs against the Registrar, the Manager, the Principal and the State of Kerala. C. M. P. 4877/73 was moved in O. P. 1491/73 for interim orders directing the respondents to forebear from taking any steps or doing any act inconsistent with, or prejudicial to the status and emoluments of the petitioner as an Additional Professor pending final disposal of the O. P. This court on 8-5-1973 passed orders, "notice and interim direction as prayed for." Even after this, the pay bill was not sanctioned by the respondent, the Deputy Director. He insisted in getting the orders from the Director regarding the admissibility of the claim. The Principal thereafter refrained from presenting bills. On getting intimation from the Principal, the petitioner's advocate sent Ex. P2 notice to the respondent apprising him of the position and telling him point blank that if the bill was refused it would in effect be flouting the orders of this court and he would have to face an action in contempt for his conduct. Even that did not deter him from "contumacious conduct". In this communication, Ex. P3, rejecting the bill he told the Principal that the claim could be admitted only when orders to that effect were issued by 'competent authority.' The petitioner having thus been frustrated in his attempts was compelled to seek remedy in contempt from this court.

(3.) The respondent, in his counter would allege that he was not aware that the petitioner was appointed Additional Professor in the Nirmala College. To his knowledge there is no sanctioned category of Additional Professor in private colleges and the appointment of the petitioner has not been approved. The respondent would proceed: