IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17515 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.SANKARAN NAMPOOTHIRI SANTHI, VETTIKULANGARA DEVASWOM CHOPPAD,MAVELIKARA GROUP (KALEEOKAL MADOM, KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMPALAM P.O.) BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, MAVELIKARA GROUP, MAVELIKARA. 2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. HARIKRISHNAN SANTHI, VALIYAKULANGARA DEVASWOM, KARTHIGAPPALLY , MAVELIKARA GROUP. BY SC SRI.D.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17515/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Santhi in the Travancore Devaswom Board who is currently serving at Vettikulangara Temple. While serving as Santhi in the Chettikulangara Devaswom, by Ext.P1 order he was proposed to be transferred to Valiyakulangara Devaswom. Apparently, petitioner did not have any objection to the same in as much as the said station was a choice given by him. The proposal under Ext.P1 of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner was again considered in Ext.P2, issued by the Devaswom Commissioner and there was no change of posting from Ext.P1, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. But later by Ext.P3 order, issued by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, petitioner is seen to have been posted at Vettikulangara Devaswom instead of Valiyakulangara as proposed under Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, this has been done by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner without the knowledge of the Commissioner. Petitioner has brought this to the notice of the Commissioner under Ext.P4. W.P.(C).17515/2008 2 2. Specific reference is made to the infraction of clause 10(b) of Ext.P4 guidelines which says that if there is more than one applicant for a particular post, then the person who has not served in the station should be preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent had already served in Valiyakulangara Devaswom for a period of five years, whereas the petitioner has not so far served. 3. In my view, this is a matter which has to be considered by the Commissioner. There must be some reason why the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner passed Ext.P3 order. In the meanwhile, it is seen from Ext.P6 that the Commissioner has forwarded Ext.P5 to the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner. This is irregular. Ext.P5 is addressed to the Commissioner and the Commissioner is required to consider and pass orders on the same. W.P.(C).17515/2008 3 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent, Devaswom Commissioner, to consider Ext.P5 and pass orders on the same, after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition also along with the copy of the judgment, before the second respondent. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs