IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 31936 of 2004(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREE KODIKKATT BAHGAVATHY DEVASWOM, REP. BY ITS HERIEDITARY TRUSTEE P.K. ANDI ACHAN, R/A. KAVIL PATHAYAPURAM HOUSE, VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SMT.G.GEETHISHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIVIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENOWMENT (ADMN), DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE, ENDOWMENTS(ADMN), DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. 4. M.SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O.VISHNU EMBRANTHIRI, R/A.NAYAR THARA, VADAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. N.SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.RMANKUTTY NAIR, R/A. CHANGARAKKATH HOUSE, THIRUVARA, KIZHAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 6. M.VASAN, S/O.MANIAN NAIR, R/A. MANGOTTU HOUSE, NAYAR THARA, VADAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 7. DEVAKIKUTTY @ GEETHA, W/O.SASIKUMAR, R/A. CHANRARANKANDATH HOUSE, MANJAPRA, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 8. C.RAJAN, S/O.CHAMI, R/A.KAVARATHARA HOUISE, VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 9. S.SATHEESH, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, R/A. KOMBAYIL HOUSE, NAYAR THARA, VADAKKENCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN FOR R4 TO 9 SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN FOR R4 TO 9 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R2,3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 31936/2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DT. 14.11.2000. EXT.P2 COMMON JUDGMENT DT. 23.6.2003. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 13.8.2003. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 16.9.2003. EXT.P5 ORDER DT. 19.9.2003. EXT.P6 ORDER DT. 30.12.2003. EXT.P7 JUDGMENT DT. 27.1.2004. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 15.4.2004. EXT.P9 MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DT. 8.5.2004. EXT.P10 FAX MESSAGE DT. 24.5.2004. EXT.P11 ORDER DT. 11.8.2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: --------------------------------------- EXT.R4(a) APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 30.9.1994. EXT.R4(b) MEMO DT. 23.8.1997 EXT.R4(c) APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 28.5.1997 EXT.R4(d) APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 30.9.1994 EXT.R4(e) DO. DT. 3.10.1995. EXT.R4(f) RESOLUTION DT. 25.11.1995. EXT.R4(g) APPROVAL DT. 7.12.1995. EXT.R4(h) APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 26.12.1998. EXT.R4(i) LETTER DT. 7.6.2000. EXT.R4(j) APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 3.10.1995. EXT.R4(k) ACCOUNT STATEMENTS. EXT.R4(l) ORDER DT. 11.1.2000. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 31936 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the present hereditary trustee of Sree Kodikkatt Bhagavathy temple. He is challenging Ext. P11 order of the Government in a revision filed by him, whereby the revision was dismissed by the Government. The subject matter of the revision is validity of appointment of respondents 4 to 9 as employees of the temple. They were appointed by the former trustee. After the new hereditary trustee took charge, he took the stand that respondents 4 to 9 were illegally appointed. Therefore, he terminated their services against which respondents 4 to 9 filed appeal before the 3rd respondent, which was dismissed by Ext. P1. It appears that against Ext. P1, appeal was filed before the Commissioner who upheld the removal from service of three employees and directed continuance of the other three. Against the same, the aggrieved employees as well as the trustee filed O.P.Nos. 23045 and 31466 of 2002 before this Court and by Ext. P2 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to re-consider the matter. The Deputy Commissioner again considered the matter and by Ext. P3 order dated 13.8.2003, held that the posts of those employees can be approved from the date of their appointment. Against the same, the hereditary trustee filed a revision before the Commissioner and by Ext. P4 order dated 16.9.2003, the Commissioner sustained the order of the Deputy Commissioner dismissing the revision petition. The trustee filed a revision before the Government against the same and by Ext. P6 order dated 30.12.2003, the Government directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter. The Commissioner again passed Ext. P8 order holding thus: “The matter was heard in detail. The main reason for the W.P.C. No. 31936/04 -: 2 :- termination of appointment of the respondents is that the post in which they were appointed were not approved by the Assistant Commissioner. Later, these 6 posts were approved by the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order dated 13.8.2003 in No. A3-1204/2002. The Honourable High Court in O.P.Nos. 23045 & 31466/2002 dated 23.6.2003 has directed the Deputy Commissioner to take up for consideration the question regarding the approval of the appointments of the respondents. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner has taken up the matter and decided positively as per the impugned order. So the question of competency does not arise in the matter. The other important point thrust upon at the time of hearing is the temple is financially weak to pay the salary of the G employees who are not actually necessary. This argument also does not gather much weight on a perusal of the records available. The income of the temple is steadily increasing and because of the earnest work put forth by the respondents the temple has prospered much and has been upgraded. The other point is discrepancy in the temple records regarding the entry of service etc., as regards the respondents. This question was examined in detail and found that the continuation of the respondents in the existing post is valid and can be allowed as such (vide order dated 16.9.2003). In the result, the impugned order can be sustained and the Revision Petition is dismissed.” Against the same, the present hereditary trustee filed Ext. P9 revision before the Government and the Government by Ext. P11 oder dismissed the same upholding the orders of the Commissioner. The present hereditary trustee is challenging Ext. P11 order dated 11.8.2004 in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, Ext. P11 is a perfunctory order without considering any of the grounds in Ext. P9 revision petition. 2. In answer to the same, respondents 4 to 9 have filed a counter affidavit controverting the contentions of the petitioner. The 2nd respondent Commissioner has also filed a counter affidavit supporting his orders. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. After several rounds of litigation at various levels, I am of opinion that the scope of challenge against the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited insofar as what is involved are questions of facts such as whether there were W.P.C. No. 31936/04 -: 3 :- sanctioned posts and vacancies, whether respondents 4 to 9 were appointed validly, whether the temple can afford the services of respondents 4 to 9 etc. All these facts have been elaborately considered by various authorities at various stages and entered specific findings of fact against the petitioner. As far as the question of approval of the posts and appointments are concerned, now that the competent authorities have considered the matter and decided to continue the post and the services of respondents 4 to 9, I do not find any need to reconsider the same in exercise of powers under under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As far as the financial condition of the temple is concerned, the Government has specifically found that in the year 2000, the income of the temple was Rs. 11.8 lakhs. In the course of proceedings before the authorities, it was also found that the temple has been steadily progressing and income has been steadily increasing, consequent to which it has also been raised to a B category temple. I am of opinion that a temple which fetches an income of Rs. 11.8 lakhs in 2000 is very much in need of these employees. Added to that, there is a specific finding that it is because of the efforts of these employees that the temple has attained this income and status. In view of the above findings, I do not find any merit in the challenge against the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/