DR.RENJITH P.G. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the 3 rd respondent to approve/concur with the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor in Sanskrit in the 5 th respondent- College w.e.f 24.09.2012, and for other consequential and incidental reliefs.

(2.) A vacancy of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit arose in the 5th respondent-College on 31.03.2004. The applicant applied for appointment to the said vacancy and eventually the applicant was selected for appointment on 18-09-2012. The petitioner was actually appointed as Assistant Professor as per Ext.P10 w.e.f 24.09.2012. The selection and appointment of the petitioner was approved by the University as per Ext.P11.

(3.) It appears that the decision of the Syndicate required concurrence of the 3rd respondent as per University Statutes. The 3rd respondent did not concur with the appointment immediately on the ground that the proper notification of the vacancies was not effected. The petitioner there upon approach this court filing W.P.C No.6813 of 2014 and this court held that the objections of the 3 rd respondent cannot be a ground to deny the salary to the petitioner. This court found that the petitioner has been duly appointed to a full time post and the University having approved his appoint there is no reason to deny benefits to the petitioner.