IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27829 of 2009(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SASI NAMBOODIRI, S/O. LATE ARYAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 58 YEARS, EZHIKKODE MANA, PAINKULAM P.O., THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. MR.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE, DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.V. KRISHNA MENON, SC, TDB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 28216/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). Nos.27829/2009-W & 28216/2009-V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009 Ramachandran Nair, J. In these writ petitions the petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their applications for appointment to the post of Melsanthi of Sabarimala/Malikapuram Temples for the coming year. 2. In the writ petition No.27829/2009, the petitioner submitted application pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. It is pointed out that he had been working as Melsanthi of a major temple for the last 18 years. From 16/07/1991 to 11/07/2009 he had been the Melsanthi of Sree Sidhapudur Ayyappa Temple, Coimbatore. Ext.P3 is the certificate issued by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the above temple and Ext.P4 is the certificate issued by the Thanthri. In between he had also been selected as Melsanthi of Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple. He had been attending the interviews for various years for appointment as Melsanthi in Sabarimala Temple and last year also, he was included in the panel among nine names. 3. In W.P.(C).No.28216/2009 the petitioner claims that he had been working as a Melsanthi of Thrikkunnath Mahadeva Temple for more than 10 years and certificates have been produced as Exts.P3 and P6 to W.P.(C). Nos.27829/2009 and 28216/2009 -:2:- show that he had been performing the duties as Melsanthi for the last 12 years. 4. The substantial contention raised by the petitioners is that both of them fulfil the qualification of continuous service of 10 years as prescribed in the notification for enabling them to submit the application. It is also submitted that the rejection of the application is per se illegal. 5. In W.P.(C).No.27829/2009, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a memo producing a letter dated 07/10/2009 wherein it is pointed out that the reason for rejection of application is that the applicant is lacking continuous service of 10 years as on the date of the application. 6. In W.P.(C).No.28216/2009 the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board made available a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer of the Devaswom concerning the petitioner wherein it is recorded that the Vigilance Officer had contacted the Manager of the Temple wherein he was working and going by the information, at present the duties of Melsanthi is performed by his brother Shri Raman Namboothiri for the last one year and the petitioner is not working in the temple for the last one year. It is also mentioned that it is an Oorazhma temple and no salary is being W.P.(C). Nos.27829/2009 and 28216/2009 -:3:- paid to the Shanties, the duties are being arranged by the Oorazhma families themselves. 7. The crucial question therefore, is since as on the date of the submission of the application they are not continuing as Melsanthies a direction as sought for in the writ petition could be granted in their favour. The very same issue was considered in a judgment of this Court in W.P.(C). No.25699/2009 and connected cases. In the said judgment dated 01/10/2009, we have considered the matter elaborately and finally in paragraphs (9) and (10), it was held thus:- “Therefore, there cannot be any room for doubt that there should be 10 years continuous service as Melsanthi as on the date of submission of the application, which means that the continuous service should be one preceding the date of application. 10. In the present notification, it has been clearly specified that the applicant should have 10 years of continuous service as a Melsanthi in any major temples having poojas thrice daily and which are open in the morning and evening, as on the date of submission of the application. Therefore, as the petitioners do not satisfy this requirement, they cannot seek for a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to accept their application in these proceedings. Admittedly, the petitioners W.P.(C). Nos.27829/2009 and 28216/2009 -:4:- do not fulfill the said criteria as on the date of submission of the application.” While arriving at the said conclusion, we had relied upon the guidelines framed by us in the order dated 24/06/2009 in Report No.67 in O.P.No.3821/1990. 8. In the light of the above, we can't say prima facie that the rejection of their application is arbitrary or illegal, with reference to the qualification as prescribed. 9. As far as the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.27829/2009 is concerned, his service as Melsanthi in the particular temple is from 16/07/1991 to 11/07/2009. The notification Ext.P1 is dated 31/07/2009. The last date of receipt of the application is 18/08/2009. It is explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had to leave the service because of certain impending personal necessities. Whatever that be, since the continuous service is not preceding the date of the application, it cannot be said that the view taken by the respondents is illegal. 10. Similarly, in W.P.(C).No.28216/2009 also going by the report of the Vigilance Officer which was accepted by the respondents, he is not in service of the temple for the last one year. Even though the learned counsel W.P.(C). Nos.27829/2009 and 28216/2009 -:5:- for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the report cannot be relied upon, in the absence of any other material we are persuaded to accept the same. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.27829/2009 vehemently contended that the guidelines required a modification as there can be circumstances where persons who were full time Melsanthies are denied the opportunity of submitting the applications merely on the basis of the fact that as on the date of the application there is a break. This is an aspect which does not arise for consideration in this case, as in these proceedings we cannot relax the qualification in favour of a few, as the general condition will apply to all the applicants commonly. For all these reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. (P.R. Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms