IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24833 of 2009(Y)
1. S.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.N.SANKARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BORAD-CHIEF
... Respondent
2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE
3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
4. GURUPRASAD, DEVASWOM SANTHI,
5. S.HARIKUMAR, DEVASWOM SANTHI,
6. N.E.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, DEVASWOM
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND
For Respondent :SRI.P.GOPAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :26/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 24833 OF 2009 (Y)
=====================
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner joined the respondent Devaswom as a Santhi as
early as on 23/11/1988. According to the petitioner, respondents
4, 5 and 6 joined as Santhis much later to him and hence he is
senior to them. During the general transfer of 2009, options were
invited by the 3rd respondent and the petitioner opted for posting
at Kaviyoor (Sivan Nada) Devaswom and Thiruvalla Devaswom.
By Ext.P1 transfer order, option exercised by the petitioner were
rejected and he was transferred to Eramellikkara Devaswom. He
filed an appeal and also a writ petition before this Court. By
Ext.P5, an interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition
filed by the petitioner, taking into account the fact that there were
certain mistakes in the option exercised by the petitioner, he was
permitted to file a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent, and
the 3rd respondent was directed to hear him and consider the
representation. Meanwhile, petitioner also joined at the
transferred place. It is stated that subsequent to that, the writ
petition was disposed of in the light of Ext.P5 interim order.
WPC 24833/09
:2 :
2. In view of Ext.P5, petitioner filed Ext.P6 representation to
the 3rd respondent exercising three options. However, by Ext.P7, his
options were rejected without hearing the petitioner. Ext.P7 was
again challenged before this Court in WP(C) NO.21322/09. By Ext.P8
judgment, this Court quashed Ext.P7 and directed the 3rd respondent
to reconsider the matter. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered
and Ext.P9 order has been passed rejecting the option exercised by
the petitioner. In Ext.P9, it is stated that at the time when transfers
and postings were ordered originally, the postings made to the Major
Koratty Devaswom opted by the petitioner in Ext.P6 was in
accordance with the guidelines prevailing.
3. In so far as the other two places opted by the petitioner
are concerned, it is stated in Ext.P9 that the persons working there
have not completed 3 years and therefore cannot be disturbed. In
the additional counter affidavit filed in this writ petition, it is also
stated that the petitioner had worked at Koratty Devaswom and
therefore as between himself and a claimant who has not worked
there, the person who has not worked there is liable to be preferred
in terms of Clause 10(b) of Ext.R3(a), the transfer guidelines.
4. In this writ petition, petitioner challenges Ext.P9. Learned
counsel contends that in Ext.P5 order, this Court having given
WPC 24833/09
:3 :
freedom to the petitioner to file a representation with a direction to
the respondents to consider the same, Ext.P6 representation filed by
him should be considered as the first option exercised by the
petitioner and that on that basis his eligibility for transfer should
have been considered. It is stated that if so considered, the reason
stated in Ext.P9 to reject his options are unsustainable.
5. True, in Ext.P5, this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to
make representation and that was ordered to be considered. Such
liberty was given taking into account the mistake committed by the
petitioner in exercising the option for general transfer. Although such
liberty was given, fact remains that by the time, general transfer
order was already issued and transferees had assumed charge.
Therefore, in the process of redressing the grievance of the
petitioner, the persons who are transferred on the basis of Ext.P1
general transfer order and assumed charge on that basis, could not
have been disturbed. If so, the view taken in Ext.P9 that the
proceedings and postings effected at the place opted by the
petitioner were strictly in accordance with the guidelines is certainly
a valid reason.
6. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a
Melsanthi, who is now forced to work as a Santhi, I feel that the
WPC 24833/09
:4 :
petitioner has a genuine grievance, which deserves to be addressed.
At this distance of time, I feel the grievance of the petitioner can be
redressed without any prejudice to the other employees only if the
petitioner is given freedom to exercise his options for postings as
and when options were invited in February, 2010 as part of general
transfer. It is directed that if the petitioner exercises his option as
above, the same will be dealt with in accordance with the guidelines
and also taking into account that he has a grievance to be redressed.
7. It is also directed that if before the general transfer
becomes due, if any vacancy arises, it will be open to the petitioner
to claim posting to such vacancies, in which event, the 3rd
respondent shall deal with such representation with the sympathy
that it deserves.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd
respondent for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp