IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 17684 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HARIPRASAD V,SHABARI MADOM, SOUTH WEST THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690518 *ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS: 4. N.HARIKRISHNAN NAMPOOTHRI, SANTHI, PUNTHALAVEEDU DEVASWOM, PAZHAKULAM, ADOOR 5. P.N MADHUSOODHANAN NAMPOOTHRI, MELSANTHI, KRISHNAPURAM DEVASWOM, KAYAMKULAM. 6. K.JAYAKUMAR, SANTHI, SAKTHIKULANGARA DEVASWOM, PAVUMBA, KARUNAGAPALLY *(ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 AS PER ORDER DATED 11.7.2011 IN I.A.NO.11032/2011) ADV. SRI.G.BIJU FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.K.SASIKUMAR FOR R5,6 SRI.C.DEVARAJAN(TVM) FOR R5,6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.17684 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 13.1.2011 P2: COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORODER DATED 23.5.2011 P3: COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED NIL P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 25.5.2011 P5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.6.2011 P6: COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 13.6.2011 P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 14.6.2011 P8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.6.2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 16.6.2011. ANNEXURE R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27.6.2011 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R5(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.63 DATED 12.1.2011 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R5(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL DATED 27.6.2011 FORWARDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.17684 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The order of transfer and its modification/re-transfer ordered by respondents 2 and 3 in the case of the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 resulted in the institution of this Writ Petition. The petitioner who got grievances with respect to Ext.P2 order of transfer, preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent. The sixth respondent also got some grievances with respect to his transfer and, he too, approached the second respondent with an appeal. Ext.P6 would reveal that the appeals preferred by the petitioner as also the sixth respondent were rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that on account of the rejection of Ext.P4 appeal, he should have been permitted to join in the place to which he was originally transferred as per Ext.P2 viz., at Punthalaveedu Devaswom. However, before the petitioner could join there, another order viz., Ext.P6 dated 13.6.2011 was passed by the respondents virtually modifying Ext.P2 as regards the petitioner by posting him to Adhinadu Sakthikulangara Devaswom as Keezh Santhi. As per the same, the sixth respondent was transferred and posted to Sakthikulangara Devaswom. In the case of the W.P.(C) NO.17684 of 2011 2 fourth respondent, his order of transfer to Chirakkal Devaswom was cancelled and he is ordered to be posted to Punthalaveedu Devaswom. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 appeal before the first respondent. 2. Though notices were issued to respondents 4 to 6, in this proceedings, only respondents 5 and 6 have chosen to enter appearance and contest the matter. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that Ext.P7 appeal preferred by the petitioner raising grievances against Ext.P6 is still pending before the Devaswom Board. 3. A counter affidavit has been jointly filed by respondents 5 and 6. In the counter affidavit, the said respondents attempted to support Ext.P6 order and the learned counsel appearing for them submitted that on account of the present re-arrangement of transfers, respondents 4 to 6 have been transferred and posted against the places of their respective first choice. Yet another contention raised by the said respondents is that prior to the general transfer, the petitioner has not submitted any application and has not chosen any particular Devaswom. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that yet another vacancy is available in Pavumpa Devaswom and therefore, re-arrangement was not at all called for. I am of W.P.(C) NO.17684 of 2011 3 the view that distribution of santhies is a matter to be looked into by the respondent authorities. Evidently, the petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal to permit him to join duty at the place where he was originally transferred as per Ext.P2 viz., at Punthalaveedu Devaswom and presently, the fourth respondent has been given posting at the said Devaswom. According to him, the sixth respondent was not at all eligible for transfer at the time of issuance of Ext.P2. However, the stand of the sixth respondent is that his last transfer was during the 2008 general transfer and therefore, his transfer is due. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the rejection of his appeal in Ext.P5, there was no necessity to effect further re-arrangements and he should have been permitted to join in the transferred place in terms of Ext.P2 viz., at Punthalaveedu itself. The petitioner has raised such contentions before the first respondent through Ext.P7. As already noticed hereinbefore, the grievances of the petitioner is to be looked into by the first respondent after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6. Since respondents 4 to 6 are likely to be affected in case of a favourble decision on Ext.P7, it will be open to them to raise their grievances against Ext.P7 on or before 8.9.2011. In case respondents 4 to 6 submit their objections within the above stipulated time, the first W.P.(C) NO.17684 of 2011 4 respondent shall consider Ext.P7 appeal and the said objections and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from 9.9.2011. The Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.17684 of 2011 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.17684 of 2011 6