S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The issue involved in all these writ appeals is on a narrow compass as to whether, after suffering a judgment and passing of a consequent Government Order in compliance with the directions in that judgment, the State and its officials can take a stand as to the said Government Order cannot be acted upon, as it was passed by one department of the Government without the concurrence of another Department?

2. All these writ appeals are preferred under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the State and its officials, challenging the common judgment dated 14.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions. Since the point to be decided in these writ appeals is the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience of reference, the parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as they are referred to in the impugned common judgment dated 14.03.2025.

3. The writ petitioners in all these cases are qualified Homeopathic Medical Practitioners working as teaching faculty under various capacities in different departments of the 5th respondent Homeopathic Medical College. Initially, the 5th respondent was a private unaided medical college. It was brought under the direct payment system on 01.09.2002 on execution of an agreement between the State and the Management on 21.06.2003. The appointment of the respective petitioners was not approved by the Government, and they were not brought under the direct payment system. The issue relating to the sanction of post, approval of appointments, and payment of salary were taken up before the Government and accordingly, meetings were held in the presence of the Chief Minister of Kerala, Minister of Health and Family Welfare Department, Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Controlling Officer and Principal, Government Homeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, and all other stakeholders, including the representatives of the Manager and teaching and non-teaching faculties.

                  3.1. In the meeting held on 31.10.2011, a resolution was passed to follow the staff pattern under the regulations issued by the Central Council for Homeopathy. The resolution with respect to payment of salary and other allowances at the earliest was taken in the said meeting. Later, on 14.02.2013, another meeting was convened by the Chief Minister, and it was resolved to disburse the salary with immediate effect. The true copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 14.02.2013 is produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.11018 of 2019. Even then, the decision taken in that meeting was not implemented. Therefore, the teaching and non- teaching staff of the 5th respondent college approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.18669 of 2006 and connected writ petitions. By the common judgment dated 13.03.2015, which is produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.11018 of 2019, this Court disposed of those writ petitions, wherein it was recorded that the Central Council for Homeopathic Regulation would govern the institution. Upon recording the undertaking by the learned Government Pleader that if a proposal is forwarded, the Government would abide by the decision taken in the meeting, the learned Single Judge issued certain directions in that judgment. The directions in Ext.P4 judgment, which was extracted in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, read thus:

                                     “I. The manager shall send the proposal to workout decision within a period of one month to the Principal & Controlling Officer.

                  II. On receipt of the proposal, the Principal & Controlling Officer, without any delay, shall forward the same to the Government for the approval of the staff pattern.

                  III. The staff pattern shall be implemented with effect from 01.09.2002, the date on which Direct Payment System was introduced.

                  IV. The Government shall take action to implement its decision in the light of proposal within two months after receipt of the same from the Principal & Controlling Officer.

                  V. The interim order passed in respect of payment of salary to various writ petitions to continue till the government takes a decision.

                  VI. Based on the approval of staff fixation, the University shall take a decision to approve the appointment of those petitioners within three months. VII. The entire arrears and monetary benefits shall be released without any delay.”

                  3.2 Though the Government went in an appeal against Ext.P4 common judgment, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed those appeals, confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Special Leave Petition filed by the Government before the Apex Court against the Division Bench Judgment also ended in dismissal by the order dated 16.08.2016.

                  3.3. After the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court, the Government issued Ext.P5 order dated 24.09.2016 bearing G.O.(Rt.)No.473/2016/Ayush/2016, sanctioning the staff pattern in accordance with the Central Council of Homeopathic Regulations, 1983 and 2002. On the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Government and Ext.P4 judgment of this Court, the 4th respondent university considered the issue and finally decided to approve the appointments/promotions made by the 5th respondent college. The order dated 04.08.2018 issued by the 4th respondent university, along with the relevant extracts of the appendix was produced as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.11018 of 2019.

                  3.4. In Ext.P5 Government Order, it is clarified that the teaching and non-teaching staff appointed up to 10.09.2002 will be governed by the 1983 regulations, and those appointed after 11.09.2002 will be governed by the regulations of the Central Council of Homeopathic Medicine, 2002. Further, the Manager was directed to forward the proposal for the appointment of qualified individuals to the Kerala University of Health Sciences for approval and after due scrutiny of the qualifications in accordance with the Central Council of Homeopathic guidelines within the stipulated period of three months. In the light of the directions in Ext.P5, the governing council of the university verified the proposal forwarded by the Manager and also scrutinised the qualifications possessed by the candidates and approved the proposal of appointment of 43 teaching staff, i.e., 13 professors, 15 readers and 15 lecturers. The list of the approved appointments are available in Ext.P6 order dated 04.08.2018 issued by the University.

                  3.5. Though the Government, vide Ext.P5 order, approved the staff pattern and the university thereafter approved the appointments by Ext.P6, the salary and arrears due to the petitioners were not sanctioned and disbursed. Being aggrieved by the non-action on the part of the Government for sanctioning the pay and other benefits consequent to Ext.P4 judgment, Ext.P5 order dated 24.09.2016 of the Homeo Medical Education Department and Ext.P6 order dated 04.08.2018 of the 4th respondent University, the respective petitioners filed the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the competent among the respondents to pay salary to them from the respective dates as mentioned in the writ petitions and issue a writ of mandamus commanding the competent among the respondents to quantify the benefits other than salary due to the petitioners with effect from the dates mentioned in the respective writ petitions and pay the amount within the time limit fixed by this Court.

4. The respondents filed counter affidavits in the respective writ petitions, contending that Ext.P5 order lacks consultation or ratification by the finance department of the Government and therefore, the said order is void. In support of the said contention, the respondents relied on Rule 10(1) of the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala, which states that no department shall without previous consultation with the finance department authorise any orders (other than the orders pursuant to any general delegation made by the Finance Department) which either immediately or by their repercussion will affect the finance of the State.

5. The learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions raised by the parties to the respective writ petitions and, by the detailed judgment dated 14.03.2025, allowed the writ petitions as mentioned above. The learned Single Judge found that after suffering Ext.P4 judgment, which attained finality, by the dismissal of the Special Leave to appeal by the Apex Court, and passing of Ext.P5 Government Order, the Government is estopped from raising any objection in implementing that Government Order. It was found by the learned Single Judge that if the Government is of the opinion that Ext.P5 order is bad, it had sufficient time and opportunity to cancel or rescind its own order on assigning sufficient reason, which has not been done till date or sought for any review or clarification of Ext.P4 judgment.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid finding in the impugned judgment and allowing of the writ petitions, the appellants filed the present writ appeals.

7. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants and the respective Senior Counsel/counsel for the party respondents.

8. We have appreciated the rival arguments addressed at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. We have also carefully gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Though during the course of arguments, the learned Special Government Pleader pointed out various judgments claiming them as in favour of the contentions of the appellants, to argue that Ext.P5 Government Order is void since it was passed without the concurrence of the Finance Department, we notice that those judgments are found as not applicable to the facts of the instant case in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

9. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge, Ext.P4 judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 13.03.2015 in W.P.(C)No.18669 of 2006 and connected matters attained finality by the dismissal of the writ appeal and the Special Leave to appeal filed by the State and its officials against those judgments. It is in pursuance of the direction in Ext.P4 judgment, Ext.P5 order dated 24.09.2016 has been passed by the Government. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the Governor of the State. As held by the learned Single Judge, after the passing of the said order, if the Government was of the view that the said order is one that ought not have been passed, then the remedy available to the appellants was to take steps to cancel that order in accordance with law, if possible. But no such steps have been taken by the Government till date, and instead has taken a strange stand in the writ petitions that Ext.P5 order passed by the Government is bad or void in view of Rule 10(1) and Rule 26 of the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala.

10. When Ext.P4 judgment has attained finality, it is the duty of the Government to implement the directions in that judgment. But instead of doing the same, even after passing Ext.P5 order with a view to implement the directions in Ext.P4 judgment and the approval of the proposal for appointment of 43 teaching staff by Ext.P6 order of the university, the Government is now taking a strange contention that Ext.P5 is a void order, which has no legs to stand. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, these writ appeals are liable to be dismissed.

                  In the result, these writ appeals stand dismissed.