IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2862 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8698/2009 Dated 30/11/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ K.SETHUNATHAN PILLAI,S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI SQ NO.VI,PAMBA RIVER FACTORY,VALANJAVATTOM.P.O, THIRUVALLA(WATCHER,SREE VALLABHA MAHA TEMPLE, THIRUVALLA). BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,DEVASWOM BUILDING, NANDANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDING,NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,THIRUVALLA GROUP, THIRUVALLA. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1-3 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2862 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 12th January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He is a Watcher working under the first respondent Devaswom Board. He represented claiming promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade II. His representation was rejected by Ext.P12 communication dated 30.6.2008. The low paid employees working in the temples and ministerial establishments are entitled to get promotion to the cadre of LDC/Sub Group Officer Grade II in the 22% quota set apart for them. Ext.P3 is the amendment of the rules brought out by the Devaswom Board, reserving 22% vacancies in the cadre of LDC/Sub Group Officer Grade II arising in every year, for the low paid employees. The appellant approached this court claiming that the percentage of vacancies reserved for low paid employees, should be enhanced. He also had a claim that if the vacancies set apart for low paid employees are filled up in accordance with the rules, he would have got promotion. So, Ext.P12 order rejecting his representation for promotion was unsustainable, it was contended. WA NO.2862/09 2 2. The respondents submitted before this court that pursuant to Ext.P3, a combined seniority list of temple employees and establishment employees, who are low paid. was prepared and rank of the petitioner in that list is 27. Among them, 17 were already promoted. Rank No.20 has already retired. So, the petitioner is the 9th person in that list to get promotion. Regarding the claim for enhancement of the percentage, the Devaswom Board, before the learned learned Single Judge, submitted that the Board has decided to enhance the percentage to 35, and gazette notification similar to Ext.P3 will be issued soon. The learned Single Judge, noticing the said submission of the Devaswom Board, disposed of the writ petition. 3. In the Writ Appeal, the appellant raised a new contention. The vacancies over and above what is reserved for low paid employees, are remaining unfilled because the appointment to them has been left to the PSC. He may be considered for provisional appointment in those vacancies also, it is submitted. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal, by an interim order, this court directed the Devaswom Board to consider that claim. We are told, the Board has already WA NO.2862/09 3 considered and rejected the claim in this regard. 4. We record the submission of the respondents that the appellant is the 9th person in the queue for promotion to the post of LDC/Sub Group Officer Grade II from among the low paid employees. We also record the submission that he will be promoted as and when his turn arises. Since the appellant does not have a legal right to claim promotion to the vacancies in excess of the quota reserved for low paid employees, we cannot give any direction in that regard to the Board. So, the prayer that is canvassed in this writ appeal to that effect, cannot be allowed. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2862 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 12th January, 2010.