High Court Kerala High Court

Harinarayanan K. vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing … on 3 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Harinarayanan K. vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing … on 3 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19970 of 2007(B)


1. HARINARAYANAN K., KANDIYIL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAJAN.P, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE,
3. SUNDARAN K.K.,
4. PREJITH C.B., EDAKKANDIYIL HOUSE,
5. UNNIKRISHNAN U., UNNITHIRU HOUSE,
6. JAYARAMAN P.V., VARIKKARA HOUSE,

                        Vs



1. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ADMINISTRATOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :03/07/2008

 O R D E R
                               V. GIRI, J.
                      -------------------------------
                      WP(C).NO. 19970 of 2007
                     ---------------------------------
               Dated this the 3rd      day of July, 2008.

                               JUDGMENT

The Guruvayoor Devaswom Board issued a notification inviting

applications for the post of Mahout from among eligible Hindu

candidates. On the publication of the notification, a writ petition

WPC.No.36141/2005 was filed by the Guruvayoor Kshetra

Samrakshana Samithi challenging the said notification on the ground

that proper guidelines were not laid down in the matter of

qualification. This court by Ext.P2 judgment rejected the said

contention finding that the qualifications are prescribed in the

Regulations and the same has been mentioned in the notification also.

The petitioners had submitted applications along with the experience

certificate. Apparently there were 120 applicants altogether and

ultimately a rank list of 27 candidates were prepared by Ext.P4. By

Ext.P5 the petitioners were appointed. The petitioners continued in

duty. An allegation was raised against one of the members of the

Managing Committee. Justice K.P.Radhakrishna Menon was

appointed as the Enquiry Commissioner. The learned Judge submitted

a report. It seems that the report did not contain any positive

finding as regards the corruption for selection of Mahout. But

WPC.19970 /2008 2

nevertheless there is a finding to the effect that the persons selected

were not adequately qualified in the sense that they did not produce

certificate evidencing the fact that they had obtained training in

looking after the elephants. Based on the enqiry report the services

of the petitioners were terminated. This was challenged before this

court. By Ext.P9 this court set aside the proceedings of the

Devaswom essentially on the ground that copy of the enquiry report

was not made available to the petitioners. The petitioners were to be

given an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, a fresh show cause

notice was issued as Ext.P10. Copy of the enquiry report as Ext.P11

was also served on the petitioners. They submitted Ext.P12 reply and

thereafter Ext.P13 order was passed affirming the earlier stand taken

by the Committee. Ext.P13 has been challenged by the petitioners.

2. Though several contentions have been raised in this writ

petition challenging the order of termination Ext.P13, I am inclined to

remit the matter to the Devaswom Board essentially for the reason

that the petitioners were not heard before passing orders. There is no

hearing prior to Ext.P13. It cannot be said that the hearing is a

formality. There is every chance of the committee taking a different

view at the personal hearing.

3. In the result, Ext.P13 order is set aside and the first

WPC.19970 /2008 3

respondent is directed to take fresh order pursuant to Ext.P10 show

cause notice after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the

petitioners or their authorised representative. Such order shall be

passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment .

4. It is made clear that if any person has been appointed as

Mahout on provisional basis during the pendency of this writ petition,

then obviously no such person shall be regularised in service, until a

decision is taken by the Managing Committee. Further if by any

chance the committee is desirous of the service of any person as

Mahout, on a provisional basis, then subject to suitability the

petitioners may also be considered in that regard. I make it clear that

I have not considered the other contentions raised by the petitioners

on merits. They are left open.

V. GIRI, JUDGE.


Pmn/

WPC.19970 /2008    4