IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32697 of 2010(J) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.MURALEEDHARAN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE MAMANIKUNNU MAHADEVI TEMPLE, MAMANAM, IRIKKUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD. 4. SREE VEERABHADRA TEMPLE, CHERUVATHOOR, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN – 671 313. 5. ADVOCATE K.T. RAVEENDRANATH, TRUSTEE, SREE MAMANIKUNNU MAHADEVI TEMPLE, MAMANAM, IRIKKUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670593. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P. (C) NO. 32697 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is now working as an Executive Officer of the Sree Mamanikunnu Mahadevi Temple, at Irikkur, in Kannur district. He was selected and appointed to that post by the 5th respondent hereditary trustee of the temple, while he was working in Sree Veera Bhadra Temple. The second respondent refused to approve that appointment. Therefore the 5th respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 10358 of 2009 before this Court challenging the orders refusing approval for the appointment. In that writ petition I passed Ext.P6 judgment wherein, I directed the 5th respondent to conduct a fresh process for appointment of executive officer in accordance with the directions in that judgment, within 4 months. I also issued directions as to how the petitioner's service should be treated during the interregnum and afterwards as follows:- “If the petitioner chooses somebody other than the 5th respondent as Executive Officer, the 5th respondent as Executive Officer, the 5th respondent shall be reverted to his original Devasawom namely Sree Veeerabhadra Devaswom. In such a situation the 4th respondent would be entitled to all service benefits as if he had never ceased to be the employee of the Sree Veera Bhadra Temple, including any promotion as Executive Officer, if he was eligible for such promotion in preference to anybody else. Till the above process is completed, the 5th respondent shall be continued to be paid the salary of the W.P. (C) NO. 32697 OF 2010 2 Executive Officer from the petitioner's temple, which he was drawing hitherto.” 2. But it appears that before passing that judgment, the second respondent had issued Ext.P7 order whereby the appointment given to the petitioner as Executive Officer of the 4th respondent devaswom was cancelled, on the ground that he did not take charge even after 10 months of the appointment. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order. 3. I have heard learned standing counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board also. It appears that the 2nd respondent omitted to bring Ext.P7 to the notice of this Court although the same was passed prior to hearing of the said writ petition. Whatever that be, from Ext.P7, I find that the said order was specifically made subject to the result of W.P.(C) No.10358 of 2009. That being so now that I have passed Ext.P6 judgment, the directions therein in respect of the petitioner would govern the case of the petitioner and not Ext.P7. The writ petition is disposed of with the above clarification. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE mns