IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1019 of 2010 in D. B. P. No.12 of 2008 --------------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN WPC. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. G.SREEPATHY, S/O.GOPALAN POTTY.V, SANTHI, CHIRAKKADAVU DEVASWOM, KOTTARAKARA GROUP, RESIDING AT VAYALIL PUTHEN MADOM, PADINJATINKARA, KOTTARAKARA PO,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. JAYASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI S., WATCHER,MARTHANDAPURAM DEVASWOM, KOLLAM GROUP, RESIDING AT VADAKKEKARA KOCHU VEEDU, VENDAR PO, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. R.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,S/O.M,.RAMAKRISHNAN- NAIR, WATCHER,PATTAZHY DEVASWOM,KOTTARAKARA GROUP, RESIDING AT THIRUVONAM, MEENAM, PATTAZHY,MEENAM, PATTAZHY PO,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. S.GOPAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, PANCHAVADYAM, KOTTARAKKARA DEVASWOM, KOTTARAKKARA GROUP, RESIDING AT KAVITTAZHIKATHU VEEDU, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA PO,. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PARTIES TO THE DBP -------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD TRIVANDRUM. R.P. NO.1019/10 -2- 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC,TDB FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. P. No.1019 of 2010 in D. B. P. No.12 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 ORDER Gopinathan, J The Ombudsman for the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Board filed report No.93 stating that there are dearth of employees in Travancore Devaswom Board and that regular appointments could not be made since the Special Rules were not yet framed and that day-to-day affairs of the temple and Board are adversely affected. The report was numbered as D.B.P.12/08. After hearing the Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board and the amicus curiae for the Ombudsman, by order dated 05/03/09, permission was accorded to make appointment of clerical staff on provisional basis initially for a period of 89 days R. P. No.1019 of 2010 -2- after calling a list of eligible candidates from the employment exchange in the temple and other establishments under the Travancore Devaswom Board in accordance with the qualification prescribed and after conducting interview. This Court further directed that a detailed report shall be filed regarding the vacancy position and sanction shall be obtained before actual order of appointments are issued. Seeking review of that order, this petition was filed by four temple employees stating that under the cover of the order dated 05/03/09 the first respondent had been taking hasty steps to fill up all the posts by provisional employees after declining the due promotion to the low paid employees including review petitioners. They would also seek for an order that their due share of promotion, i.e. 35% of the total vacancies, shall be given and the vacancies may be filled up by resorting R. P. No.1019 of 2010 -3- provisional promotion of the low paid employees from Annexure-I seniority list. 2. Having heard the Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the counsel appearing for the review petitioners, we find that there is no merit in the review petition and the apprehension of the review petitioners can be averted by making a clarification and permitting the review petitioners to pursue their remedies in appropriate proceedings and that there is no reason at all warranting a review. There is no error in the order sought to be reviewed to be rectified in review. 3. In the above circumstances, this review petition is dismissed clarifying that the order sought to be reviewed would no way affect the right of the review petitioners for their due promotion or their right for pursuing remedies to get provisional promotion, if they are entitled to or the rules R. P. No.1019 of 2010 -4- or regulation so provided. There will be no order as to costs. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-