{"id":10137,"date":"2009-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009"},"modified":"2014-11-24T10:35:51","modified_gmt":"2014-11-24T05:05:51","slug":"m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 25699 of 2009(F)\n\n\n1. M.D.VENU NAMBOODIRI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE COMMISSIONER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :01\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                                     P.R.Raman &
\n                          T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
                 W.P.(C) Nos.25699\/2009-F, 27410\/2009-U
\n                                     27411\/2009-V\n<\/p>\n
                 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
                   Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
\nRamachandran Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
      These writ petitions are filed by the applicants to the post of<\/p>\n
Melsanthi in Sabarimala\/Malikapuram Temples for one year starting from<\/p>\n
Thulam 30th of 1185 M.E. ( one year from 15th of November, 2009). Since<\/p>\n
common issues arise for consideration, they are disposed of by a common<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The notification in question inviting applications for the post of<\/p>\n
Melsanthi of Sabarimala\/Malikapuram Temples is produced as Ext.P10 in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.25699\/2009. The last date for receipt of applications was by 5<\/p>\n
p.m. on 18.8.2009. The detailed procedures for selection are specified in<\/p>\n
the notification itself.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The petitioners mainly contended that they are having more than<\/p>\n
10 years of service as Melsanthi as specified in the notification, in various<\/p>\n
major Temples.        It is the apprehension of the petitioners that their<\/p>\n
applications will be rejected on the ground that they are not having 10<\/p>\n
wpc 25699\/09, 27410\/09
\n& 27411\/09                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
years of continuous service immediately preceding the date of application.<\/p>\n
It is contended that 10 years of continuous service at any point of time will<\/p>\n
be sufficient, going by the notification.\n<\/p>\n
       4.  In W.P.(C) No.25699\/2009, the petitioner claims that he had<\/p>\n
functioned as    the Melsanthi of Kannampuzha Sreekrishna Kshethram,<\/p>\n
Palissery, Thrissur for over 10 years during the period from 10.2.1987 to<\/p>\n
10.3.1998. He is now functioning as Melsanthi of Mandalakkode Sree<\/p>\n
Dharma Sastha Kshethram, Kottayi, Palakkad ever since 15.2.2009. In<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.27410\/2009, the petitioner is having a hereditary right to<\/p>\n
perform as ‘Othikkan’ at Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple. He is claiming<\/p>\n
that he has studied pooja vidhies and is well-versed in them. He was<\/p>\n
selected to hold the post of Melsanthi of Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple<\/p>\n
on two occasions, i.e. from 1.10.1998 to 31.3.1999 and from 1.4.2002 to<\/p>\n
30.9.2002. From October, 2008 onwards he is functioning as Melsanthi of<\/p>\n
Manappullykavu Bhagavathi Temple at Palakkad.                   In W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.27411\/2009, the petitioner had worked in various Temples like Sree<\/p>\n
Krishnaswamy Temple, Muttam, Aluva and Pallikkara Sree Mahadeva<\/p>\n
Temple. Going by Ext.P1 certificate, he was the Melsanthi of Muttam Sree<\/p>\n
Krishna Swamy Temple from January, 1964 to December, 1975 and going<\/p>\n
by Ext.P2, he was the Melsanthi of Pallikkara Sree Mahadeva Temple<\/p>\n
from 14.4.1990 to 30.4.2000.\n<\/p>\n
wpc 25699\/09, 27410\/09
\n& 27411\/09                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
      5. Heard Shri V. Chitambaresh, learned Senior Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25699\/2009 and Shri Binoy Vasudevan,<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions, Shri V.<\/p>\n
Krishna Menon, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Travancore<\/p>\n
Devaswom Board and Shri R. Lakshmi Narayan, learned Govt. Pleader.<\/p>\n
      6. Shri V. Chitambaresh, learned Senior Counsel contended that<\/p>\n
even going by the notification, what is prescribed is only 10 years of<\/p>\n
continuous service as Melsanthi in any major temple and it is not the<\/p>\n
requirement that the said service should be 10 years immediately preceding<\/p>\n
the date of submission of the application. It is submitted by referring to the<\/p>\n
findings contained in the order dated 24.6.2009 in Report No.67 in<\/p>\n
O.P.No.3821\/1990 also that even in the guidelines prescribed by this court<\/p>\n
in the said order for the purpose of selection of Melsanthies in Sabarimala<\/p>\n
and Malikapuram Temples, it is not specified that 10 years service should<\/p>\n
be one which precedes the date of application. This argument is adopted by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other writ petitions.<\/p>\n
The above argument is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the Travancore Devaswom Board as well as the learned Govt. Pleader.<\/p>\n
      7. In fact, the issue regarding the prescription of guidelines was<\/p>\n
elaborately considered by us in our order dated 24.6.2009 in Report No.67<\/p>\n
in O.P.No.3821\/1990. During the selection of Melsanthies for the last year<\/p>\n
wpc 25699\/09, 27410\/09
\n& 27411\/09                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
in the renowned Sabarimala and Malikapuram Temples, we had passed<\/p>\n
orders    in Report No.67 in O.P.No.3821\/1990 filed by the learned<\/p>\n
Ombudsman, Justice R. Bhaskaran (Retd.). During the process of selection,<\/p>\n
we had appointed Justice K. Padmanabhan Nair (Retd.) as Observer to<\/p>\n
oversee the selection process.      We have passed      the final order after<\/p>\n
considering various suggestions contained in the reports submitted by the<\/p>\n
learned Observer, the recommendations of Justice K.S. Paripoornan High<\/p>\n
Power Commission report and after hearing various parties.<\/p>\n
       8. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that<\/p>\n
10 years continuous service at any point of time alone is sufficient, has to be<\/p>\n
tested in the light of the specific recommendation made by the Observer in<\/p>\n
the final report and which was accepted in our order dated 24.6.2009. In<\/p>\n
fact, in the final report dated 22.10.2008, the learned Observer had made<\/p>\n
various recommendations in regard to the prescription of qualification in the<\/p>\n
light of the various anomalies reflected in the selection process. We quote<\/p>\n
para 24 of the report wherein it is specified that the 10 years continuous<\/p>\n
service must be immediately preceding the date of application:<\/p>\n
          “At present the applicant need only produce a certificate to the<\/p>\n
          effect that he had 10 years’ continuous service as a Santhikkaran.<\/p>\n
          It need not have any nexus to the date of application. It should be<\/p>\n
          specified that the applicant must have ten years’ continuous service<\/p>\n
          as Santhikkaran immediately preceding the date of application.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
wpc 25699\/09, 27410\/09
\n& 27411\/09                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
This recommendation was accepted by us while pronouncing the final<\/p>\n
order. In fact, in the final order, we had noticed the anomalies pointed out<\/p>\n
by the learned Observer that persons who are not working as full time<\/p>\n
Santhies and are having other avocations, are submitting applications for<\/p>\n
appointment as Melsanthi at Sabarimala and Malikapuram Temples. The<\/p>\n
thrust of the recommendation was that the person who is an applicant and<\/p>\n
who will be selected as Melsanthi of Sabarimala and Malikapuram<\/p>\n
Temples, should have been working as a full time Melsanthi of a major<\/p>\n
Temple, for the required period, preceding the date of application. The<\/p>\n
requirement to produce proper experience certificate from the Thanthri of<\/p>\n
the Temple wherein he had been working as Melsanthi, has also been<\/p>\n
specified in the said report. In our order dated 24.6.2009, we have held in<\/p>\n
para 25 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “We are of the view that the recommendations made by the learned<\/p>\n
       Observer regarding these aspects are really important and should<\/p>\n
       therefore be included among the guidelines framed by the<\/p>\n
       Devaswom Board.        Presently, even though 10 years service      is<\/p>\n
       stipulated as experience qualification, it is not specified that the<\/p>\n
       same should be 10 years prior to the        last date fixed to submit<\/p>\n
       application. This is a lacuna as far as the guidelines are concerned.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
wpc 25699\/09, 27410\/09
\n& 27411\/09                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
Therefore, there is no scope for any argument as now raised by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners that 10 years’ continuous service at any point of<\/p>\n
time will be sufficient. We have clearly held that experience should relate<\/p>\n
to 10 years immediately prior to the last date of submission of application.<\/p>\n
In fact, the existing guidelines which were in force at that point of time had<\/p>\n
been made available by the Travancore Devaswom Board as Annexure C<\/p>\n
along with their counter affidavit. Therein, the specification in clause (4)<\/p>\n
read like this:\n<\/p>\n
        “Ten years continuous service as Santhi in any of the important<\/p>\n
        temples in Kerala is compulsory.”\n<\/p>\n
This clause was ordered to be modified in the final order by us.<\/p>\n
         9.   In para 36 of     the order dated 24.6.2009, we directed the<\/p>\n
Travancore Devaswom Board to incorporate among the guidelines, clauses<\/p>\n
(1) to (6) specified therein. The relevant portion of the said clause which<\/p>\n
is relevant for deciding the dispute herein, reads as follows:<\/p>\n
       “1. Clause (4) will be substituted as follows: The candidate who<\/p>\n
       seeks appointment as Melsanthi of Sabarimala and Malikappuram<\/p>\n
       Temples, should have at least 10 years of continuous service as on<\/p>\n
       the last date of application as a Melsanthi in any major temples<\/p>\n
       wherein poojas are held thrice daily and the temples are open in the<\/p>\n
       morning and in the evening. The candidate should produce the<\/p>\n
wpc 25699\/09, 27410\/09
\n& 27411\/09                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
       certificate of the Thanthri of the Temple\/Temples where he is<\/p>\n
       working, along with the application.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore, there cannot be any room for doubt that there should be 10 years<\/p>\n
continuous service as Melsanthi as on the date of submission of the<\/p>\n
application, which means that the continuous service should be one<\/p>\n
preceding the date of application.\n<\/p>\n
         10. In the present notification, it has been clearly specified that the<\/p>\n
applicant should have 10 years of continuous service as a Melsanthi in any<\/p>\n
major temples having poojas thrice daily and which are open in the morning<\/p>\n
and evening, as on the date of submission of the application. Therefore, as<\/p>\n
the petitioners do not satisfy this requirement, they cannot seek for a<\/p>\n
direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to accept their application in<\/p>\n
these proceedings.     Admittedly, the petitioners    do not fulfill the said<\/p>\n
criteria as on the date of submission of the application.<\/p>\n
          11. Learned Senior Counsel Shri V. Chitambaresh submitted that<\/p>\n
as the parties herein have all been engaged in the conduct of poojas, the<\/p>\n
requirement to have 10 years of continuous service preceding the date of<\/p>\n
submission of application, will put them in acute hardship. It is submitted<\/p>\n
that suitable modifications may be directed to be done in the guidelines to<\/p>\n
avoid the difficulties experienced by such applicants. It is also submitted<\/p>\n
wpc 25699\/09, 27410\/09
\n& 27411\/09                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
that since these applicants have been remaining in the profession as<\/p>\n
Santhies, Othikkan, etc., they are entitled to have a separate treatment.<\/p>\n
         12. We are afraid that the said contention cannot be accepted. The<\/p>\n
guidelines are uniformly applicable as far as the applicants are concerned.<\/p>\n
There cannot be an exception towards any particular category as the same<\/p>\n
will clearly interfere with the prescriptions of the notification. This court<\/p>\n
cannot in these proceedings, prescribe any new modalities to vary the<\/p>\n
prescriptions made in the present notification. Further, it is well settled that<\/p>\n
individual hardships cannot be a matter for consideration by this court while<\/p>\n
considering the qualifications for selection and appointment in various<\/p>\n
posts.\n<\/p>\n
         Therefore, we find no reason to grant the reliefs sought for in these<\/p>\n
writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n
                                              (P.R. Raman, Judge.)<\/p>\n
                                       (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)<\/p>\n
kav\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 25699 of 2009(F) 1. M.D.VENU NAMBOODIRI, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, … Respondent 2. THE COMMISSIONER, For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-24T05:05:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-24T05:05:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1746,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009\",\"name\":\"M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-24T05:05:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-24T05:05:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-24T05:05:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009"},"wordCount":1746,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009","name":"M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-24T05:05:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-d-venu-namboodiri-vs-the-travancore-devaswom-board-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.D.Venu Namboodiri vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10137\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}