IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16352 of 2008(V)
1. M.N.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
4. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
5. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, CHERUVALLY
6. SHRI ANILKUMAR, SHANTHI, CHERUVALLUY,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :03/06/2008
O R D E R
V. GIRI, J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).NO. 16352 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is a Melsanthi in the Travancore
Devaswom Board challenges Ext.P3 order of transfer issued by the 4th
respondent, by which he has been transferred from Chenapady to
Thiruvarppu Major Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Kottayam which is
situated at a distance of 20 km. The petitioner submits that earlier he
had served at Thiruvarppu and on his request he was transferred to
Cheruvally. When he was serving at Cheruvally, he was transferred to
Chenappady and the same was challenged before this court in
WP.C.No.14580/2008. This court by Ext.P1 judgment required the
petitioner to move the Commissioner by means of an appeal against
the order of transfer. This has been done as per Ext.P4 which is
pending orders. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent as per Ext.P3
transferred the petitioner from Chenappady to Thiruvarppu and the
same has been challenged in this writ petition.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner
Sri.N.Unnikrishnan and the learned Standing Counsel for Devaswom
Board Sri.D.Sreekumar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is
WPC. 16352/2008 2
no justification for Ext.P3 order of transfer by which the petitioner has
been transferred from Chenappady to Thiruvarppu pending
consideration of Ext.P4, which is an appeal submitted in terms of
Ext.P1 judgment. He further submits that the petitioner had served at
Thiruvarppu for almost 8 years and it was on his request that he was
shifted to Chenappady. Now he was brought back to Thiruvarppu
without any justification. In my view these are matters which ought to
be legitimately agitated before the Commissioner. The fact that the
petitioner has now been transferred from Chenappady to Thiruvarppu
should not stand in the way of the Commissioner considering Ext.P4 on
merits. At the same time, the Commissioner shall also consider the
petitioner’s grievance as regards the transfer effected under Ext.P3.
The decision shall be taken on Ext.P4 in this regard within three weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner
may supplement Ext.P4 with an additional representation.
V.GIRI, JUDGE.
Pmn/ WPC. 16352/2008 3