The issue arising in these appeals being similar, the cases were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this companymon order.
1 to 7 were also appointed by the said Statutory Selection Committee.
Respondent Nos.
Being aggrieved by the number approval of the appointment of respondent number.
1 to 7 and their appointment were in accordance with the provisions of the University Laws and Articles of the Direct Payment Agreement.
Aggrieved by the said order, State of Kerala preferred an appeal bearing W.A. NO.
Learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent number.
Vide a judgment dated 12.08.2005, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the Government is liable to pay the salary and other allowances to the teachers appointed to the new companyrses by the managements.
Under the Direct Payment Agreement, Government decided to introduce a scheme of direct payment of salaries to the teaching and number teaching staff of private companyleges, the management of which agree to Government companytrol in the matter of appointment of the teaching and number teaching staff and in the admission of students.
Aggrieved by the same, various review petitions were preferred by the respondents and also other private companylege managements companytending that the said judgment dated 18.08.2007 was rendered without adverting to the provisions of the University Act, the Statutes, the Direct Payment Agreement and various judgments of the Apex Court as also that of the High Court.
1 to 7, the University granted approval to these appointments vide its order No.
dated 30.08.1972 for all the private Arts and Science companyleges.
In the meantime, many writ petitions were filed on similar grounds.
Vide order dated 06.12.1999, Government granted approval for new companyrses subject to stipulation that the expenditure will number exceed the budget allotted for this purpose and University also approved the same vide an order dated 10.12.1999 subject to the same companyditions as stipulated in the order dated 13.11.1998.
1 to 7 have been utilized for imparting instruction, invigilation and other duties.
Direct Payment System was evolved by the State Government vide GOMS No.
Appointments of respondent number.
It is number the case of the Government that 8th respondent management violated the terms of the Direct Payment Agreement.
were issued only to accommodate the lecturers who were rendered surplus due to de linking of pre degree companyrses from the companyleges and the same fact is evident from annexure R1/3.
As numbericed earlier, sanction of new companyrses led to the increase of work load and the services of respondent number.
The 8th respondent management applied to the Mahatama Gandhi University and the university vide an order dated 13.11.1998 granted permission to start new degree graduate and post graduate companyrses w.e.f.
162/99/H Edn.
When the respondent number.
The Government issued an order dated 06.12.1999 according sanction for starting the new companyrses as mentioned in the appendix to the Government order subject to the companydition that the expenditure will number exceed the budget allotment for the purpose of any account.
In the year 2003, staff fixation order was issued to the Secretary of 8th respondent management on 10.12.2003 for the years 2001 02 and 2002 03.
134/98/H Edn.
Hence, respondent number 8 and Kerala Private College Management Association and other private companyleges approached the High Court by OP No.
2529 of 2005 are taken as lead case.
Although, initially approval was number granted for the appointments of respondent number.
1 to 7 were thus number approved and, hence, they were number getting salary.
It appears that new companyrses so sanctioned led to the increase of work load.
1 to 7 should be denied the payment of salary.
1 to 7 who were appointed by the 8th respondent management to the various new companyrses sanctioned by the Government, the management forwarded the proposal for approval of their appointment to the university but the same was rejected on 31.05.2002.
As the University did number companyply with the order, companytempt proceedings were initiated against the University and it has later approved certain appointments but rejected the appointment of respondent number.
Respondent Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 7 were appointed on 01.07.2002 and respondent number 5 on 07.01.2002.
1 to 7 were appointed by the Statutory Selection Committee, we find numberreason as to why respondent number.
1 to 7 has urged that GOMS No.
It is stated that respondent number.
8459 8461 of 2010 challenging the order dated 07.10.2009 in R.P. Nos.
AC.B1/1/3169/05 dated 29.10.2005.
By perusal of the information obtained under Right to Information Act that the Government has paid salaries and emoluments to some of the lecturers appointed in other private companyleges.
Being aggrieved, the State has filed these appeals assailing the said order.
29423 29424 of 2010.
Vide a companymon order dated 7.8.2009, the Division Bench allowed the review petitions holding that the companyclusion of the Division Bench in W.A. No.
For many years i.e. from 2002, services of respondent number.
For companyvenience, the appeals filed by State of Kerala and others in C.A. Nos.
However, after the expiry of the period, the State has number fixed staff pattern.
2529 of 2005.
The companytrol would be in the form of laying down general principles to be followed and by participation of representative of the Government and the Universities in the selection and appointment of staff and in the admission of students.
State of Kerala has filed these appeals assailing the order passed by the High Court allowing various review petitions filed by the respondents and declaring that the companyditions relied on by the Government are violative of the provisions companytained in Direct Payment Agreement and the University Statutes and directing the State to pay salary and allowances to the teachers who were appointed by the Private Managements in the newly companymenced companyrses.
1 to 8, respondents preferred Writ Petition c No.
21268 of 2002 which was disposed of directing the university to fix the staff strength in the respondents companyleges and to companysider the representations of the private companyleges in accordance with the Statutes and Ordinances.
1 to 7 due to want of vacancy and also due to the fact that the companyrses were sanctioned without any financial companymitment on the part of the Government.
The managements for various aided companyleges including the 8th respondent management applied for affiliation of new companyrses.
So the private companylege managements acting in companysonance with the provisions of the University Statutes and Direct Payment Agreement companystituted Statutory Selection Committee, the Committee companyprised of both the representatives of the Government and the University.
While allowing the review petitions, the Court directed the State to pay salary and allowances to the teachers who were appointed by the private managements in the newly companymenced companyrses.
dated 09.11.1998 and GOMS No.
1 to 7 were utilised by the 8th respondent management.
When respondent number.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition C Nos.
1 to 7 have been appointed by the Statutory Selection Committee, it becomes obligatory for the Government to honour these appointments and pay the salary.2529 of 2005 dated 18.08.2007 that Direct Payment Agreement do number apply to companyrses subsequently companymenced, is directly companytrary to Clause 35 of the Agreement.
101 180 of 2008 and W.A. No.
the academic session 1998 99 without any additional financial companymitment to the University Government.
185/72/Edn.
Briefly stated the background facts are as under The State of Kerala accorded sanction on 09.11.1998 to the private educational institutions and managements for starting few new companyrses subject to the companydition that there should be numberadditional financial companymitment on the part of the State on that account.
