IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 14164 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SAJEEV.K.V, KARAPPILLI HOUSE, KOTTAPPADI, PUNNATTOOR KOTTA, GURUVAYOOR. 2. P.VINOD MUTHEDATH VEEDU,PUTHENPALLI P.O., GURUVAYOOR 680 103. 3. C.V.SUDHEER CHAKKALAPURATHU VEEDU, THYCADU P.O.GURUVAYOOR. 4. HARIDASAN.T.K. THODUVIL VEEDU, KOTTAPPADI P.O.,THRISSUR 5. K.MANIKANDAN KARAMIL VEEDU, PUTHIYAMATHOOR, MARATHAMKODE P.O.,THRISSUR 680 604. 6. SURESH BABU P PARACKAL VEEDU,PARASSERY P.O. KONGADU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.14164/2009-M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners 1 to 3 were working as Mahouts in the Guruvayur Devaswom on temporary basis and have been terminated with effect from 17/05/2009, petitioners 4 and 6 are working as Mahouts on temporary basis and the fifth respondent was working as such during the past. 2. The writ petition is mainly filed seeking to quash Exts.P7 and P9 and for a declaration that they are fully qualified to be appointed as Mahouts in the Devaswom. 3. The genesis of the dispute needs no reiteration since already in the judgment in W.P.(C).No.34129/2008, this Court had occasion to consider the validity of termination of 8 petitioners therein who were appointed pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. The petitioners were also applicants pursuant to the said notification. In fact, they have been included in the ranked list and their rank numbers being Nos.26, 19, 20, 14, 18 and 21 respectively. It appears that there were various allegations regarding the selection process, which ultimately resulted in the appointment of a Commission headed by Mr.Justice K.P.Radhakrishna Menon (Retd.), by the W.P.(C). No.14164/2009 -:2:- Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, as per Resolution dated 16/02/2006. Ext.P3 is the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C). Nos.16008/2006 and 16304/2006 wherein, the respondents were directed to issue fresh show cause notice to the concerned persons before a decision was taken in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioners were also issued show cause notice as per Ext.P4 along with report of the Enquiry Commission. The Devaswom thereafter decided to terminate the appointments made as also the ranked list as per Ext.P7. Ext.P8 is the judgment of this Court wherein, this Court directed the respondents to conduct a fresh hearing in the matter. Thereafter, by Ext.P9, final orders have been passed on 28/06/2008. 4. Mainly it is contended that in the light of the decision of this Court in W.P.(C).No.34129/2008, wherein the orders of termination have been quashed, the petitioners are also entitled for the said benefit. It is pointed out that there are more than 40 permanent vacancies of Mahouts and therefore, going by the ranking in the ranked list, they are entitled to be appointed. The petitioners were appointed as Mahouts on temporary basis pursuant to Ext.P12 notification. The petitioners contend that going by the qualifications prescribed under Regulation 5(d) of Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983, they are qualified and therefore, the reasons W.P.(C). No.14164/2009 -:3:- stated in the order, namely, Ext.P9 to cancel the selection of persons like the petitioners cannot be justified. 5. As directed by this Court, a statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that pursuant to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.34129/2008, the respective petitioners in the said writ petition were appointed on a permanent basis. Thereafter, the petitioners 1 to 3 herein were disengaged from service in order to maintain the equilibrium between the vacancies and appointments. Petitioners 4 to 6 herein were appointed on temporary basis on a consolidated pay for one year from the date of their engagements as per order dated 17/09/2008, and they will be disengaged from service on completion of one year on 16/09/2009. The fifth petitioner herein was working on CLR basis and is not in service of the Devaswom Board. It is pointed out that in Ext.P1 notification, vacancies notified are only 10. The ranked list was published on 27/01/2006 and its validity was for a period of three years. The same has expired before the filing of the writ petition. Presently, Devaswom has decided to make all permanent appointments through P.S.C. Therefore, the Devaswom decided to make appointments only on a temporary basis and after conducting interview by an expert committee, a new ranked list for 41 persons was published. In the said list 30 persons were engaged for 179 W.P.(C). No.14164/2009 -:4:- days and after the completion of the initial period of 179 days of work, they were engaged on contract basis. This was on a consolidated pay. It is pointed out that the petitioners herein are not entitled for any reliefs in the writ petition. 6. It is clear from the pleadings that the petitioners were engaged only on temporary basis pursuant to the notification, Ext.P12, alone. Their appointments were not as per their ranking in the ranked list. But the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.34129/2008 were appointed based on the ranking in the ranked list. True that the petitioners herein were also issued show cause notice before Ext.P9 order was passed in the matter. But still, W.P. (C).No.34129/2008, the direction to re-appoint the terminated persons may squarely apply to the petitioners therein only, since the writ petitioners herein were never appointed on a permanent basis. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in the light of the judgment in W.P.(C).No.34129/2008, the ranked list could not be deemed to have expired on the expiry of three years period and therefore, as sufficient number of vacancies are in existence, they are entitled for appointment based on the ranking in the ranked list. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board, only 10 vacancies were notified as per Ext.P1 and in the light of the W.P.(C). No.14164/2009 -:5:- well accepted principles stated by this Court and the Apex Court, in various judgments as the said vacancies have been filled up, persons lower in the ranked list cannot claim anything as a matter of right to get appointment in future vacancies unless there is something in the Regulations or in the notification to the contrary. The Management cannot be directed to fill up future vacancies from the same rank list. Admittedly, there is no such permissive provision enabling the Managing Committee to operate the ranked list based on judgment in W.P.(C) No.34129/2008. Therefore, the said argument cannot be accepted. 9. It is true that the basis for the cancellation of the ranked list as per Ext.P9 was the report of the Mr.Justice K.P.Radhakrishna Menon (Retd.), Commission. This Court had found in the judgment in W.P.(C). No.34129/2008 that the basis of the cancellation, relying upon the report cannot be sustained in the light of the qualifications prescribed in the regulations and in the notification issued by the Devaswom. The declaration of law therein would have squarely applied to the petitioners had they been appointed as per the ranking in the ranked list. There is considerable delay also in filing the writ petition. They approached this Court only after expiry of 3 years period of ranked list. Presently, petitioners 4 and 6 will be disengaged from service with effect from W.P.(C). No.14164/2009 -:6:- 16/09/2009. Whether their term has to be extended or not is for the Managing Committee to decide. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that for continued engagement of the temporary hands Devaswom will be publishing appropriate notification and therefore, the petitioners can also participate in the selection process. The same is recorded. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms