IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1102 of 2009(F)
1. K.MADHAVAN PILLAI, WATCHER, THIRUVALLAM
... Petitioner
2. V.S.ANILKUMAR,WATCHER,TRAVANCORE
3. R.VIJAYAN, KAZHAKAM,THRIVIKRAMANGALAM
Vs
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REP; BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM
For Petitioner :SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :05/10/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of October 2009.
JUDGMENT
Common contentions arise for consideration in these writ
petitions, which have been heard together and therefore they are
being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to the
contentions in Writ Petition No. 1102/2009 and wherever it is
necessary, I will refer to the contentions in Writ Petition
No. 2653/2009 as well.
2. Petitioners are employed as Watcher and Santhi in the
Travancore Devaswom Board. They are low paid temple
employees of the Board. They claimed a right to be considered
for promotion as Lower Division Clerks / Sub Group Officers /
Lower Division Typists, in the Board. Reference is made in
this regard to the recruitment rules which currently provides
that 22% of the vacancies in the post of L.D.Clerk/Sub Group
Officer/L.D.Typist is available for temple employees and
establishment employees. According to the petitioners, a
common seniority list is drawn up amongst the temple employees
and establishment employees, but the vacancies in the post of
L.D.Typists are not separately identified. In other words, if the
W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009
2
seniority list, is operated, for the purpose of filling up 22% of
vacancies, in the post of L.D.Clerk / Sub Group Officer and
L.D.Typist taken together, then a very long time will be taken for
the petitioners who are qualified for L.D.Typists, to be appointed
in that regard.
3. It will be useful to highlight certain aspects highlighted
in Writ Petition No. 2653/2009. The petitioner in the said Writ
Petition is a ‘Santhi’, who is also qualified to be an L.D.Typist.
He is included in the common seniority list of temple employees
and establishment employees and otherwise eligible to be
considered and appointed to the post of L.D.Typists. He is
included in Serial No. 115 in Ext.P5 seniority list. According to
him, persons who are junior to him in the said list have been
appointed as L.D.Clerks / Sub Group Officers and this is illegal.
He prays for a direction that Ext.P5 must be operated in such a
manner that existing vacancies in the post of L.D.Typist must be
filled up from among the said seniority list and this should be
done by taking into account, the vacancies which have arisen
during the period from 2002 onwards.
4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009
3
The manner in which 22% of the vacancies in the post of
L.D.Clerk / Sub Group Officer and L.D.Typist are currently made
available for eligible persons amongst the low paid temple
employees and establishment employees have been traced.
5. By Ext.R2(a) notification dated 27.02.1991, 10% of the
vacancies arising during each calender year in the cadre of
Lower Division Clerks / Sub Group Officers Grade-II were to be
filled up by transfer from eligible low paid employees. 10% was
later increased to 18% as evidenced by Ext.P1 notification dated
28.04.2005. By the same notification, L.D.Typists were also
brought within the purview of the notification providing for
reservation of vacancies in favour of low paid temple employees
and establishment employees.
6. The change brought about under Ext.P12 notification
dated 10.10.2006, was to increase the percentage of vacancies to
be made available for low paid employees of the Board, to 22% of
the vacancies arising each calender year. Further a common
seniority list as per the date of entry in service was to be
prepared amongst the establishment employees and temple
employees for the aforementioned purpose. It is contended that
W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009
4
this procedure brought about by Ext.P12 dated 10.10.2006 is
currently being followed.
7. It is also contended that several persons qualified for
the post of L.D.Typist amongst the low paid employees of the
Board were also eligible for the post of L.D.Clerk/Sub Group
Officer Grade-II. The post of L.D.Typist requires an additional
technical qualification and the same is not interchangeable with
L.D.Clerks or Sub Group Officers. It is affirmed that Ext.P5 is
followed in filling up the vacancies.
8. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.
9. I heard Mr.K.Karthikeya Panicker and Mr.Sreekanth S.
Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Gopal,
learned Standing Counsel for the Board.
10. The post of L.D.Clerk and L.D.Typist are not
interchangeable. But, the posts are referred to commonly, in the
notifications including Ext.P12. The Board should take steps to
see that vacancies in the post of L.D.Clerk / Sub Group Officer
Grade-II on one hand and the L.D.Typist on the other arising
each year are ascertained separately. I take note of the stand of
the Devaswom Board that hitherto the common seniority list
W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009
5
comprehending the establishment employees and the temple
employees have been operated uniformly as regards the
L.D.Clerks, Second Grade Sub Group Officers on one hand and
L.D.Typists on the other. The list may be continued to be
operated. But the ascertainment of vacancies in the two
categories will have to be done separately and qualified among
the low paid employees eligible to be considered for the post of
L.D.Typists will have to be appointed in the order of seniority
determined as per the rules in force. All vacancies which have
arisen in the quota of 22% of the posts since the operation of
Ext.P12 will naturally have to be filled up from the common
seniority list prepared in that regard. If the turn of the
petitioners who are said to be eligible and qualified for
appointment as L.D.Tpists arises, the fact that the persons senior
to them in Ext.P5 common seniority list, had aspired for
promotion to the post of L.D.Clerk / Sub Group Officer Gr.II,
should not stand in the way of the petitioners being considered
for the post of L.D.Typist as and when vacancies arises.
Obviously, this direction would be applicable to the case of the
petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2653/2009 also.
W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009
6
11. The contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C).2653/09
that persons who are junior to him in the category of low paid
employees have stolen a march over him is left open to be
agitated, as and when cause of action arises. It is made clear
that any claim for appointment to an available vacancy in the
post of L.D.Typist, with reference to a date prior to the date on
which the petitioners may be appointed, may be agitated with
notice to the affected parties in other proceedings.
Subject to the above, writ petitions disposed of.
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
kkms/