IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24628 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- K.M.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN KIDAVU, UTHRADAM, PALAKKADA ROAD, EDAKKAD POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,KOZHIKODE-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONR. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR, DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT, KOZHIKODE -1. 3. SRI.VETTAKKORUMAKAN TEMPLE,BILTHIKULAM, P.O.ERANHIPALAM - 673006.KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CHAIRMAN. 4. K.P.SIVANANDAN, "THRIPTHI"BILATHIKULAM, ERANHIPALAM POST, PIN-673006. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.24628 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner was for some time the Chairman of the Sree Vettakkorumakan Temple. The petitioner's case is that while he was working as Store Keeper of the temple, the 4th respondent was Chairman of the temple. However, 4th respondent later in his capacity as Chairman terminated the petitioner and he appointed himself as the Store Keeper. The petitioner contends that his termination is illegal. Standing Counsel submitted that the post, though was not sanctioned, is now sanctioned and regular appointment will be made, for which petitioner can also apply. According to Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board, the 4th respondent is only a temporary employee and he has no right of regularisation, though he also may be eligible to apply for the post. In the circumstances, we dispose of the W.P.(C) directing respondents 1 and 2 to proceed with appointment of the Store 2 Keeper by following the normal procedure giving opportunity to all eligible persons to apply for the post including the petitioner and the 4th respondent, if they are eligible. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms