IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26896 of 2008(B)
1. C.PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.P.V.RAYARAPPAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
3. THE CHAIRMAN, SREE OORPAZHASSIKKAVU
4. R.MADHAVAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE
For Respondent :SRI.GOVIND.K.BHARATHAN (SR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :25/09/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).26896/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner and the 4th respondent aspire for the post of
Executive Officer in the Oorpazhassikkavu Devaswom.
Petitioner had sent a complaint against the selection of the
4th respondent to the 2nd respondent. While so, the 4th
respondent was suspended and he challenged the order of
suspension before this Court. This Court by Ext.P7
judgment, directed the 1st respondent therein namely the
Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowments Department, to consider the request made by
the petitioner therein for revocation of his suspension. By
Ext.P8 order, the Commissioner directed that the suspension
be revoked. But at the same time, the appointment of the 4th
respondent is also directed to be approved. This has been
challenged in the writ petition.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st
respondent, the Commissioner. One of the contentions taken
up is Ext.P8 order is revisable by the Government under
Section 99 of the HR & CE Act.
W.P.(C).26896/08
2
3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the
Malabar Devaswom.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
direction issued by this Court in Ext.P7 was only to consider
the request made by the 4th respondent for revocation of
suspension. The Commissioner had travelled away beyond
the scope of the application by proceeding to approve the
appointment of the 4th respondent. This is ignoring the
complaint filed by the petitioner challenging the selection of
the 4th respondent. The net result is that the petitioner has
been deprived of an opportunity to impugn the selection of
the 4th respondent.
5. It is true that the Commissioner has proceeded not
only to revoke the suspension but also pass an order
approving the appointment of the 4th respondent. But the
petitioner has a remedy before the Government, against
Ext.P8, under Section 99 of the Act. Though learned counsel
for the petitioner expresses a doubt as to whether the said
W.P.(C).26896/08
3
power can be exercised on an application, I do not think
there is any reason to be apprehensive. The power can be
exercised on application also. Learned Government Pleader
and learned counsel for the Devaswom Board also affirm
this position.
6. Petitioner may file a revision against Ext.P8 within four
weeks from today. If it is so done, Government shall
proceed to entertain the revision on merits and dispose of
the same considering the petitioner’s contentions, as regards
the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner
approving the appointment of the 4th respondent, on an
application filed by the 4th respondent, for revocation of
suspension. Such order shall be passed within three months
from the date of receipt of revision, after hearing the
petitioner, a representative of the Malabar Devaswom and
the appointee, the 4th respondent also.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs