IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23038 of 2010(D)
1. SREENIVASAN, PART TIME SWEEPER
... Petitioner
2. SUSEELAN, SIVANANDAN, PART TIME SWEEPER
Vs
1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL)
3. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
For Petitioner :SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 23038 OF 2010 (D)
=====================
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are Part Time Sweepers in the Maramath wing
of the Devaswom Board. Despite absence of avenues of
promotion, they claimed promotion. According to them, while
the temple employees were getting promotions, they were
discriminated Finally, they approached this Court and filed WP
(C) No.29209/09 and by judgment dated 9/11/09, the writ
petition was dismissed. They filed WA No.130/10 and that writ
appeal was also dismissed by Ext.P1 judgment. In the judgment,
this Court held that whether there should be a full time post of
Sweeper in the Maramath wing is a matter for the Devaswom
Board to decide.
2. It would appear that, subsequently, the petitioners
filed representations to the Board claiming promotion to the post
of Lascar. The said representation was forwarded to the Chief
Engineer and the Chief Engineer appears to have submitted
Ext.P2 report to the Devaswom Commissioner. Referring to the
decision of the Board dated 6/10/2008 to the effect that the post
WPC No. 23038/10
:2 :
of Lascar and the post of sweeper are different and that there is
no Rule for promoting sweepers to the post of Lascar, the Chief
Engineer closed the file. It is stated in the report that it is a
matter for the Board to reconsider. What the petitioners now
say is that in view of what is stated in Ext.P2 report of the Chief
Engineer, the Board should be directed to reconsider their
claims for promotion.
3. Essentially, it is a matter of policy, and it is for the
Board to decide whether they have to review their decision dated
6/10/2008 or to create the post of full time sweeper as claimed
by the petitioners. Ext.P2 does not show that the Board is seized
of this issue. Therefore, if at all the petitioners are desirous of
moving the Board, it is upto to them to make representations, in
which event, it is up to the Board to decide on the issue and in
such a matter, this Court cannot issue any direction as sought for
by the petitioners.
Writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp