IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 104 of 2009(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1697/2009 Dated 15/01/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): --------------------- TALIPARAMBU TRICHAMBRAM KANJIRANGAD, DEVASWOM, REP BYITS MANAGING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, TALIPARAMBU 670 141, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)WRIT PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 3 IN WPC NO.1697/2009: --------------- 1. M.P. KUBERAN, S/O. LATE HARIDASAN, NAMBOODIRI, AGED 38 YEARS, MUNDOTTILLAM, CHAVANAPUZHA, KARIMBAM, TALIPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRSENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, CIVIL STATION, TALIPARAMBU, KOZHIKODE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (DEVASWOM), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P.No.104/2009 in W.P.(C). No.1697/2009-B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 O R D E R The review petitioner is the first respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of at the time of admission on on 15/01/2009. The matter concerns the continuance of the writ petitioner in the Devaswom as Executive Officer. As per Ext.P7 order, the Government found that he was not entitled for relaxation of age. By the impugned judgment, this Court directed the second respondent Devaswom Board to consider Ext.P9 representation filed by the writ petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a time limit and further ordered to maintain status quo till a decision is taken by the Devaswom Board. 2. In the review petition, it is pointed out that the writ petitioner has already been removed on 12/01/2009 and on the strength of the judgment he is creating unnecessary hurdles in the day-to-day administration of the Devaswom. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The writ petitioner has not been R.P.No.104/2009 in W.P.(C) No.1697/2009 -:2:- granted age relaxation as per Ext.P7 order and since the post in question is one relating to the administration of the Temples and as the matter was disposed of at the admission stage itself, the review petitioner is right in submitting that they should have been heard before disposing of the writ petition. In that view of the matter, I allow the review petition and recall the judgment. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms