IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19042 of 2009(A)
1. M.N.MADHUSOODANAN NAMBOODIRI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE
3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE
4. SRI. V.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRY MEL SANTHI
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUKUMARAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :25/09/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
W.P.(C). No. 19042 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =
Dated this the 25th day of September 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner and the 4th respondent are Santhis in the
Travancore Devaswom. Both of them gave options in the course
of the general transfer for the year 2009-2010 and by Ext.P1
order of the third respondent, the petitioner was posted as a Mel
Santhi in the Padanayarkulangara Temple and the 4th respondent
was posted therein as a Keezh Santhi by the third respondent. It
seems that as the Rules governing transfer contemplates an
appeal, the same was preferred before the Devaswom
Commissioner and the Commissioner as per Ext.P2 order
proceeded to uphold the claim of the 4th respondent and directed
that the 4th respondent to be posted as a Santhi in the
Padanayarkulangara Temple. No separate posting orders are
issued contemporaneous to Ext.P2. But, it is admitted on all
sides that the 4th respondent is to act as a Mel Santhi and
petitioner is to act as a Keezh Santhi in the Padanayarkulangara
Temple as per Ext.P2. Ext.P2 has been challenged in the writ
petition and by virtue of an interim order, the petitioner
W.P.(C). No. 19042 OF 2009
2
continues as a Mel Santhi and 4th respondent continues as a
Keezh Santhi.
2. Ext.P2 has been challenged in several grounds.
Inter alia it is contended that it was passed without hearing the
petitioner.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Devaswom Board
as also by the 4th respondent. It is pointed out that the petitioner
was earlier posted as Mel Santhi in the same temple, for two
terms of one year each. The 4th respondent was a Keezh
Santhi for 3 years (1 term). Clause-10(B) of the guidelines
regulating transfer marked as Ext.R4(a) provides that if there is
more than one applicant for the same station, Devaswom shall
prefer the person who has not otherwise worked therein. It is
contended that since the petitioner has earlier worked in
Padanayarkulangara Temple as a Mel Santhi and the 4th
respondent had only worked as a Keezh Santhi, the 4th
respondent was preferred to the petitioner. The contention
raised by the petitioner is that he is senior to the 4th respondent
and therefore station seniority should determine the rival claims.
W.P.(C). No. 19042 OF 2009
3
It is pointed out by the respondents that the station seniority
would be relevant only if the petitioner had not worked as a Mel
Santhi in Padanayarkulangara Temple earlier and 4th respondent
had in turn worked as a Mel Santhi in the same temple, but not
otherwise.
4. I do not propose to consider these contentions on their
merits, since I am of the view that an order in the nature of
Ext.P2 which varies Ext.P1 should have been passed only after
hearing the affected person namely, the petitioner. After all, a
variation has been given effect to on a plea in the nature of an
appeal at the instance of the 4th respondent. Therefore the
petitioner should have been heard.
5. Accordingly, Ext.P2 is set aside and the second
respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext.R4(b) appeal
after hearing the petitioner and also the 4th respondent. This
shall be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. But care should be taken to see that the
petitioner is not directed to act as Keezh Santhi in a temple
where the 4th respondent is appointed as Mel Santhi. The order
W.P.(C). No. 19042 OF 2009
4
should also specify the place of posting of both parties and
should not leave the choice of posting to the original authority.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
kkms/