IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29011 of 2009(V)
1. THAMARAKULAM VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REP.BY ITS
... Respondent
2. COMMISIONR,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
3. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SABARIMALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :15/10/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN &
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = == == = = =
W.P.(C) NO. 29011 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Raman, J.
Petitioner was an applicant for the post of Melsanthi at Sabarimala
and Malikapuram for the year 1185-1186 M.E. (2009-2010). He
submitted his application along with the testimonials and initially he was
called for the interview. But subsequently, he was informed that he does
not possess the requisite qualification as contained in Clause (6) of the
notification . The intimation in this regard was conveyed to him by
Ext.P8. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application, petitioner has
come up with this writ petition.
2. It is contended that the petitioner has the requisite
qualification as prescribed and he placed reliance on Exts.P5 and P6
certificates produced along with the writ petition. Though in Ext.P6 he
has been certified as ‘Prasada Santhi’ working in Thali Devaswom,
Kozhikode, it is contended that ‘Prasada Santhi’ referred to in Ext.P6
means only that he was the Melsanthi. It is further submitted that there
are sub-deities in the Temple, the Santhies perform the duties as
W.P.(C) 29011/2009 2
Melsanthi of the main deity by turn every month, there are two Melsanthies
who thus work on turn and while one of them is the Melsanthi in the main
shrine, the other is doing poojas for the sub deities. However, the question
as to whether ‘Prasada Santhi’ should be taken as ‘Melsanthi’ of the major
temple being a question of fact, it may not be possible at this last hour to
take a final decision, that too pertaining to a question of fact. Further, the
interview is already over and the final selection will be done on 1st of
Thulam (M.E.) ie. on 17.10.2009 and therefore, the writ petition at this
belated stage does not merit consideration.
3. In these circumstances, learned counsel seeks to withdraw the
writ petition without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to seek appropriate
modification in the scheme, at least for the coming years. He also submits
that the rejection of his application may not stand in the way of his being
submitting his applications for being considered for the post, next time.
Since an amendment to the scheme is to be made, and the present writ
petition does not pertain to the amendments made in the existing guidelines
prescribed, it is not to be dealt with in this proceeding. This is a matter to
be dealt with at appropriate time as and when report of the Ombudsman is
submitted before this Court pursuant to the final selection made to the
Melsanthi.
W.P.(C) 29011/2009 3
4. Since we have not gone to the merits of the contention, the
dismissal of this writ petition will not affect his right, if any, in seeking
modification to the scheme.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed subject to the above.
P.R. RAMAN,
(JUDGE)
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
(JUDGE)
KNC/-