IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21197 of 2010(Y)
1. C.K.VIKRAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
5. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
6. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER,
7. SHRI.N.K.KESAVAN NAMPOOTHIRI,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :12/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.21197 of 2010 (Y)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 12th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is working as a Puram Santhi. He was posted at
Thirunakkara Maha Deva Temple. By Ext.P3 order dated
24/05/2010, he was transferred as Melsanthi of Thiruvarppu
Temple. It is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, this writ petition has been
filed.
2. Two contentions are raised in this writ petition. One is
that the petitioner had opted for a posting at Vijayapuram Temple
and that it was without considering his superior claim that he has
now been transferred and posted to Thiruvarppu Temple. Second
contention is that having regard to his physical condition, the
petitioner is not in a position to discharge the duties of Melsanthi at
the Thiruvarppu Temple.
3. Insofar as the petitioner’s first contention that he is
entitled to a posting at Vijayapuram Temple is concerned, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent Board submits that the
WP(C) No.21197/2010
-2-
petitioner was posted at Vijayapuram Temple at different spells of
time, the last of which was from 23/06/2004 to 31/05/2007.
Relying on Clause 10(b) of the Transfer Guidelines, learned Standing
Counsel contends that if there are more than one applicant for a
particular station, the applicant who does not have service at that
station will have preference. It is stated that it was for this reason
that the petitioner’s request for posting at Vijayapuram Temple
could not be considered.
4. The next contention of the petitioner is that he could not
have been posted to Thiruvarppu Temple, having regard to his
physical condition. Referring to the affidavit filed in support of the
writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there
are other suitable persons available in the services of the
respondent Board, who could have been posted to Thiruvarppu
Temple and therefore his posting at Thiruvarppu Temple is
unjustified. However, learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom
Board points out that in terms of the custom prevailing, only
Melsanthies from the four villages, viz., Onamthuruthu, Kidangur,
Kadamuri and Kumaranelloor, could be posted to the Thiruvarppu
WP(C) No.21197/2010
-3-
Temple. It is stated that the petitioner is the only Melsanthi hailing
from the one of these villages and available within the Group and
that therefore, the petitioner had to be posted.
5. Although in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the
petitioner has averred that there are several other persons, the
petitioner has not named any one of Melsanthies available in the
services of the Board, who could have been posted to Thiruvarppu
Temple.
6. Thus from the submissions of the learned Standing
Counsel for the Board, it is obvious that the petitioner could not
have been posted to Vijayapuram Temple as claimed by him in view
of Clause 10(b) of the Transfer Guidelines. Further having regard to
the custom prevailing, the petitioner is the only Melsanthi available
within the Group to be posted at Thiruvarppu Temple. In such
circumstances, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with
the authorities in posting the petitioner at Thiruvarppu Temple. On
the other hand, if according to the petitioner, anybody else is
available to be posted at Thiruvarppu Temple, I leave it open to the
petitioner to move the 2nd respondent, who thereupon shall pass
WP(C) No.21197/2010
-4-
appropriate orders dealing with the grievances raised.
At last, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that
the order passed on Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner has not
been communicated to him. Although it is submitted by the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent Board that the appeal has been
disposed of by order dated 25/06/2010, as rightly pointed out by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, no order on the appeal has so
far been communicated to the petitioner. In view of this, it is
directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd
respondent shall issue to the petitioner a copy of the order said to
have been passed on Ext.P4 appeal.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg