IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27147 of 2011(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.G. SUKU, MUTTATTU HOUSE, MALAYALAPUZHA, THAZHAM.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 666. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDING NANDANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ARANMULA GROUP, ARANMULA-689 109. 4. K.R. SURESH KUMAR, KOCHUVILA THEKKETHIL HOUSE, ULANADU.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-689 503. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE,SC SRI.G.BIJU,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.27147/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTING ORDER GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. DATED 30/8/2011. EXT.P(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE. DATED 8/6/1999. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19/2/2011. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DATED NIL EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DATED 23/6/2011. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/6/2011. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.17699/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURTDATED 14/7/2011. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/9/2011 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENTDATED 31/9/2011. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11/10/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.27147 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Watchman at the Malayalapuzha Devaswom in the Aranmula group. He was appointed to the said post in a vacancy that arose on the death of another employee, Sri.T.Gopi. Pursuant to his posting as per Ext.P1, the petitioner has been working at Malayalapuzha. According to the petitioner, he is a person who suffers from a physical disability and it was considering his disability that he was given a posting as per Ext.P1. 2. The fourth respondent, another Watchman who was initially working at the Cherukol Devaswom had submitted an application for a transfer indicating his choice of preferences as Aranmula Devaswom, Chengannur Devaswom and Malayalapuzha Devaswom. On the basis of his request, the fourth respondent was given a posting to Aranmula Devaswom. However, the Wpc No.27147/2011 2 said order, Ext.P3 was challenged by another employee before the Devaswom Commissioner. The Devaswom Commissioner, on a consideration of the said petition, ordered that he be posted at Aranmula Devaswom. Thereupon, the fourth respondent was posted to Kodumthara Devaswom. Against the said order Ext.P4, the fourth respondent filed an appeal, Ext.P5. The petitioner was not a party to the said appeal. As per Ext.P7, the appeal filed by the fourth respondent was allowed and he was given a posting at Malayalapuzha Devaswom, displacing the petitioner in the process. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P8 representation to the first respondent. However, by Ext.P9, the first respondent has posted the petitioner to Omallur Devaswom. The petitioner is aggrieved by the above posting. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, there are vacancies available even now at both Aranmula Devaswom and Chengannur Devaswom. Therefore, it is contended that he could have been accommodated to any Wpc No.27147/2011 3 one of the vacancies that is in existence, as indicated by him. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the issue of appropriate directions to the first respondent for the consideration of Ext.P8 representation submitted by him. 4. Adv.G.Biju, Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, on instructions, submits that the vacancies indicated by the petitioner are not in existence. He seriously disputes the assertion of the counsel for the petitioner that any vacancies are in existence, as alleged. However, he assures that Ext.P8 representation would be considered by the first respondent and the suggestions put forward by the petitioner for accommodating him would also be considered after ascertaining the vacancy position. 5. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner set out in his representation evidenced herein by Ext.P8 in accordance with law, after ascertaining the vacancy position, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any Wpc No.27147/2011 4 rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as to any affected person. Sd/-K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE true copy css/ P.S.TO JUDGE