IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20411 of 2010(B)
1. M.T.RADHAKRISHNAN, U.D.CLERK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
3. THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA
For Respondent :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.20411 OF 2010(B)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Deputy
Devaswom Commissioner (Thiruvavbharanam) in Aranmula Office.
By Ext.R2(c) he applied for transfer to Ayiroor Puthiyakavu Temple,
Pattanakkadu Temple and Udayamperur Temple as Sub Group
Officer. When Ext.P8 general orders of transfer was issued, the
request made by the petitioner was not allowed. He filed Ext.P1
appeal to the Board. By Ext.P9, that was forwarded to the
Devaswom Commissioner for a report. It is stated that the
Devaswom Commissioner forwarded the report on 11.6.2010.
However, on the basis that he also exercised appellate power in
view of Ext.P4 order of this court, Devaswom Commissioner dealt
with Ext.P1 appeal and passed Ext.P2 order transferring the
petitioner as Sub Group Officer of Pattanakkad Sub Group. However,
that order was subsequently canceled by the Devaswom
Commissioner himself by Ext.P3 order. It was thereupon that this
writ petition is filed.
WPC.No. 20411/2010
:2 :
2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the
petitioner is that Ext.P8 order was passed by the Devaswom
Commissioner effecting transfer and postings and that he filed
Ext.P1 appeal aggrieved by Ext.P8. It is contended that the appellate
order namely Exts.P2, and P3 canceling the said order, were passed
by the same authority which counsel contends is impermissible.
3. On the other hand respondents seek to justify the
Devaswom Commissioner’s action relying on Ext.P4 order passed by
this court. It is also now brought to my notice that subsequent to
the issuance of the impugned orders guidelines are modified and at
present it is the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner in the Office of
the Devaswom Commissioner, who is the competent authority for
effecting transfers and postings of non gazetted employees like the
petitioner. Counsel submits that the appeal is provided to the
Devaswom Commissioner and further revision is provided to the
Board itself.
4. On facts thus it is obvious that in this case the original
order of transfer, viz. Exts.P8, Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 order
canceling the said order were passed by the same authority, viz. the
WPC.No. 20411/2010
:3 :
Devaswom Commissioner. In my view, an authority cannot exercise
appellate powers over his own orders and applying that principle
necessarily Exts.P2, and P3 order canceling Ext.P2, needs to be
invalidated. Accordingly, I set aside Ext.P2 to the extent it transfer
the petitioner and Ext.P3 canceling the same.
5. It is now reported that new Board has assumed office and
it has revisional powers. Therefore, I direct that the first respondent
shall consider Ext.P1 filed by the petitioner against Ext.P8. The
Board shall consider Ext.P1 and pass orders thereon as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks of receipt
of a copy of the judgment. In the meantime status quo as on date so
far as the petitioner’s continuance as U.D clerk in Aranmula Office
shall be maintained.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WPC.No. 20411/2010
:4 :