IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2006 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1928 WP(C).No. 28924 of 2006(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ GOPALAKRISHNAN POTTY, MEL SANTI, THIRUVALLAM DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD. BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 2. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GROUP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SHRI. ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.K.DENESAN, J. ----------------------------- WP(C)No. 28924 OF 2006 ----------------------------- Dated this the 16th November, 2006. JUDGMENT The petitioner has been working as Melsanti of Thiruvallam Sree Parasurama Swamy Temple since 27.9.2005. Apprehending transfer from the above temple he filed Ext.P3 representation before the second respondent-Commissioner requesting to allow him to continue as Melsanti in the same temple atleast until the respondent makes general transfers during March-April next year. Since the petitioner did not get any reply to Ext.P3 this writ petition has been filed for a direction to the second respondent to pass orders on Ext.P3 and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to continue at Thiruvallam Sree Parasurama Swamy Temple till general transfers. 2. The respondents have filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner is liable to be transferred on completing one year service in a major temple like Thiruvallam Sree Parasurama Swamy Temple and therefore going by the norms he cannot be allowed to continue beyond one year. It is also stated that certain santhies are interested in considering their cases for posting at Thiruvallam immediately on the petitioner completing the period of one year. The respondents have produced Exts.R1 WPC 28924/2006 2 (a), R1(b) and R1(c) furnishing the details of santhies who are waiting for a posting in the temple where the petitioner is working. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P4 order has been passed by the third respondent relieving the petitioner with effect from 7.11.2006 so that he will have to report for duty as Keezshanti in Taliyil Devaswom. It is contended that the respondents could have allowed him to continue in the same station for a few more months so that he could have shown his preference or option at the time of the general transfer for a posting in any of the temples of his choice. By the impugned action, that benefit has been taken away. This is one of the consequences of transferring him from the present temple and posting him in another temple as Keezhsanti. Standing counsel for the respondents submits that the action taken by the respondents is in accordance with the norms and if the petitioner's contention is accepted that will amount to deviation from the norms. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. It isnot be possible to say that the transfer of the petitioner is not in accordance with the norms accepted by the Board. The order relieving the petitioner from the present temple cannot therefore be interfered with. However, the WPC 28924/2006 3 petitioner's right to file an application at the time of general transfer indicating the temple of choice shall be protected notwithstanding the transfer now ordered. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the fact that the petitioner has been working in the transferred place only for a few months at the time of general transfers shall not stand in the way of he submitting an application for transfer indicating his choice as a special case. Application, if any, submitted by him shall be considered in accordance with the norms. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. K.K.DENESAN Judge jj