IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15312 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.AMBIKASUDHAN,S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR AGED 36 YEARS,SECURITY GUARD NOW IN CHARGE OF CLERK,SEVA COUNTER OF SHREE CHANDRAGIRI SASTHA AND THRIKKANAD TRAYAMBAKESHWARA DEVASWOM, P.O BEKAL,KASARGOD DISTRICT - 671 318. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SRI.K.S.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CIVIL STATION,KOZHIKODE-20. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,CIVIL STATION,KOZHIKODE-20. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BAORD,NILESHWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 4. THE TRUSTEE BOARD OF SREE CHANDRAGIRI SASTHA AND THRIKKANAD TRAYAMBAKESHWARA DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,P.O BEKAL 671 318,KASARGOD DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SHREE CHANDRAGIRI SASTHA AND THRIKKANAD TRAYAMBAKESHWARA DEVASWOM,P.O BEKAL,KASARAGOD. 6. K.MADHU,PEON,SREE CHANDRAGIRI SASTHA AND THRIKKANAD TRYAMABAKESHWARA DEVASWOM, P.O BEKAL,KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.15312 OF 2010 (L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Security Guard working under the 4th respondent. He submits that there is a vacancy of Clerk and that the 4th respondent is proposing to appoint an unqualified person overlooking his superior claims. He submitted Ext.P3 representation also in this behalf to the 3rd respondent. Standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3, on instructions submits that the Trustee Board have made appointments and have placed a proposal for approval before the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has to consider the matter and forward it to the Commissioner for final orders. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is yet to consider the proposal and therefore the 3rd respondent will consider the proposal in the light of the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P3 and a final decision in the matter will be taken. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 claim made by the petitioner as and when the proposal made by the 4th respondent is taken up for consideration. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WPC.No. /09 :2 : vi/