IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33092 of 2009(F)
1. K.BIJU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/12/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 33092 OF 2009 (F)
=====================
Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Sankeerthanam in the Ambalapuzha Sree
Krishna Swami Temple. According to him, in view of Exts.P1 to P3,
he is eligible to be appointed as a Teacher in Classical Music
(Vocal). It is stated that petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application to
the Commissioner of the Board seeking appointment as a teacher
in any of the Kshetra Kala Peedoms under the Board. That was
forwarded to the Cultural Director of the Board by Ext.P5. In
pursuance to Exts.P4 and P5, it is stated that Ext.P6 order was
issued deputing the petitioner for work at the Kshetra Kala
Peedom, Harippad. However, the Kshetra Kala Peedom, Harippad
was not established and hence Ext.P6 was not implemented.
Therefore the petitioner submitted Exts.P7 and P8 requesting that
he be considered against the other existing vacancies of teacher
in Classical Music (Vocal) at Vaikom or Attingal. In this writ
petition, he seeks consideration of his application against the
aforesaid vacancies.
2. However, standing counsel appearing for the
WPC 33092/09
:2 :
respondents points out that after Exts.P4 and P5, by notification
dated 17/2/2009, applications were invited for appointment to the
vacancies at Attingal and Vaikom pointed out by the petitioner. It
is stated that one of the eligibility condition was two years
teaching experience in Government recognized institutions as a
Music Teacher. According to him, the petitioner did not satisfy this
condition and did not apply and that, of the three candidates who
responded, two were selected.
3. From the facts, therefore, it is evident that against the
vacancies now claimed by the petitioner, selection process was
initiated and the petitioner did not satisfy the eligibility laid down
by the Board. He also did not make any application. If that be so,
the petitioner cannot now claim that his candidature should be
considered against those vacancies.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp