DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION Vs. SUBAIR KUNIYIL ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, POCKER SAHIB MEMORIAL ORPHANAGE COLLEGE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is against the judgment passed by the learned single Judge directing the first respondent Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, North zone, Kozhikkode to disburse the salary due to the petitioner, holding that the writ petitioner was entitled to have the benefit of the verdict rendered by this Court in Shalini Rachel v. Manager, Christian College [2007 (3) KLT 355] , virtually to the effect that once the post was sanctioned by the University, it was not liable to be interfered by the Government with reference to the alleged non approval of the workload. The learned single Judge, however, has permitted the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to take up the matter with the University, in case they are aggrieved by the approval for want of sufficient workload, at the same time, directing that the arrears of pay shall be disbursed to the petitioner within three months.

(2.) Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader points out that there was no sufficient work load for appointment of the writ petitioner as Assistant Professor in the Mathematics Department. Based on Annexure B produced along with I.A. No. 981 of 2017, it is pointed out that the workload assessed and approved by the Department at serial No. 5 clearly reveals that it is to an extent of 118 hours, which will justify the appointment of only 7 persons. The said proceedings are based on the revised fixation pursuant to the reassessment of the workload on the basis of the meeting held on 18.12.2002. The writ petitioner had approached this Court pointing out that he was appointed against the sanctioned post and joined duty as borne by Ext. P1 appointment order issued by the third respondent on 13.03.2014. A copy of the proceedings dated 23.04.2015 issued by the University has been produced as Ext. P2, which shows that the second respondent University has accorded sanction to the approval of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor (Mathematics). The contention was that, once the work load was assessed by the University and the post was sanctioned by them, it was never open for the Government to have interdicted the said proceedings in any manner, in view of the decision rendered by this Court in 2007 (3) KLT 355 (cited supra). Reliance was also sought to be placed on Ext. P3 judgment passed under similar circumstances by a learned single Judge in respect of the person by name Dr. Kiran Kumar, who got appointment as Assistant Professor (Maths), subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner. As per Ext. P3 judgment, placing reliance on the decision reported in 2007 (3) KLT 355 (cited supra), it was held that claim of the said writ petitioner was liable to be allowed and accordingly, the entire salary and allowances were ordered to be disbursed within two months. After hearing both the sides and appreciating the materials on record, the learned single Judge placing reliance on the verdict rendered in 2007 (3) KLT 355 (cited supra) allowed the writ petition with the direction as mentioned above.