IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 26692 of 2006(C) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ANITHA G.S., D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT TC NO.9/2223, VINAYAKA, SHASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SANDHYA RAJAN, RAJADHANI, EAST GATE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. MANU P.S., POZHICKAL, KANICHUKULANGARA, CHERTHALA. 4. BIJU G., VILAYIL VEEDU, KOPPAM, KUTHIRAKULAM P.O., VEMPAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. 5. ANILKUMAR V., KIZHAKKEPAZHAYATTINKUZHI, KOTTARA, MEEYANNOOR, KOLLAM. 6. MANJUSHA S., ERAVIMANGALATHU ILLOM, MALAYALAPPUZHA. 7. ANOOP G., KALAPPURACKAL HOUSE, AYMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.M.R.SARIN SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.KIRAN SANKAR ...2/- WP(C).No. 26692 of 2006(C) -2- RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BUILDING, KURAVANKONAM, TRIVANDRUM. *ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED *2. DEMOCRATIC YOUTH FEDERATION OF INDIA, KERALA STATE COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, *IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER IN I.A NO. 16408 OF 2006 DT. 28/11/06. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC, TDB SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC SRI. C. VIJAYAN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SRI.M.P.VIJAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2011 , ALONG WITH WPC NO. 35869 OF 2009 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...3/- WP(C).No. 26692 of 2006(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.05.2005 APPEARING IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN TEST OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN TEST OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN TEST OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN TEST OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN TEST OF THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN TEST OF THE 6TH PETITIONER. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE WRITTEN TEST OF THE 7TH PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE A1. : COPY OF NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 21.8.2006 REGARDING THE CORRUPTION IN THE SELECTION FOR APPOINTMENT UNDER THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A1(a) : ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A1 NEWS ITEMS. ANNEXURE A2 : COPY OF APPLICATION FOR DD FOR RS. 49,000/- IN THE NAME OF ANILKUMAR DATED 15.10.2005. ANNEXURE A2(a) : COPY OF APPLICATION FOR DD FOR RS. 49,000/- IN THE NAME OF H. ANAND DATED 15.10.2005. (Contd...) WP(C).No. 26692 of 2006(C) ANNEXURE A2(b) : COPY OF APPLICATION FOR DD FOR RS. 49,000/- IN THE NAME OF M.S. MURALI DATED 15.10.2005. ANNEXURE A2(c) : COPY OF APPLICATION FOR DD FOR RS. 49,000/- IN THE NAME OF SWAROOP DATED 15.10.2005. ANNEXURE R2(a) : COPY OF NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 21.8.2006 REGARDING THE CORRUPTION IN THE SELECTION FOR APPOINTMENT UNDER THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R2(b) : ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.R8(a) NEWS ITEMS. ANNEXURE R2(c) : COPY OF APPLICATION FOR DD FOR RS. 49,000/- IN THE NAME OF ANILKUMAR DATED 15.10.2005. ANNEXURE R2(d) : COPY OF APPLICATION FOR DD FOR RS. 49,000/- IN THE NAME OF H. ANAND DATED 15.10.2005. ANNEXURE R2(e) : COPY OF APPLICATION FOR DD FOR RS. 49,000/- IN THE NAME OF M.S. MURALI DATED 15.10.2005. ANNEXURE R2(f) : COPY OF APPLICATION FOR DD FOR RS. 49,000/- IN THE NAME OF SWAROOP DATED 15.10.2005. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). Nos.25575, 26692 & 32966 OF 2006, 20620 OF 2008 & 35869 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. These writ petitions are filed raising issues relating to appointment in the service of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Some of the petitioners challenged the cancellation of select list prepared by the Board. Some other petitioners seek direction to make appointments. 2. On hearing the learned counsel Adv.P.Gopal and Adv.Nagaraj Narayanan on behalf of the TDB, it is seen that the Board has decided to cancel the selections. The additional counter affidavit in W.P.(C).No.25575 of 2006 is eloquent in this regard. 3. Be that as it may, in our view, all these writ petitions have to fail on the pivotal issue relating to the provisions contained in section 29A of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Act, 1950. W.P.(C)25575/06 & conn. 2 That provision is in pari materia with section 127A of that Act. These two provisions were brought in, to bring the recruitment and other matters in the TDB and CDB under the coverage of the Public Service Commission. This relates to the administrative sector and not to the temple staff. Section 127A which applies to the CDB fell for consideration of the Division Bench in CDB v. Deputy Director Local Fund Account (Cochin Devaswom)) (2011 (4) KLT 849). That led to the following conclusion as regards the administrative service of the Board. “..........By the operation of S.127A and the effect of S.3(2) of the Additional Functions Act and the provisions of the Consultation Rules, the management of the process of recruitment to those posts in the category of L.D.Clerks including all vacancies which existed as on the date of coverage under the additional functions of the P.S.C can be had only in consultation with the P.S.C. Therefore, going by the clear terms of the aforenoted provisions, further appointments in different vacancies of L.D Clerks in the Board can be had only in consultation with the P.S.C. This may be in relation to matters to preserve the reservations and then give the open market recruitment to be carried out by the P.S.C and on consultation, in terms of Recruitment Rules, to have any other W.P.(C)25575/06 & conn. 3 mode of selection for the vacancies for which reservation may be available to the in-service candidates.” The aforesaid applies on all fours to section 29A, as already stated. Hence, these writ petitions are only to be dismissed. The TDB has necessarily to undertake the process in terms of the law stated in the aforesaid judgment. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN (Judge) Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) spc/14.12. W.P.(C)25575/06 & conn. 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C)25575/06 & conn. 5