IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 19038 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ N.OMANA, KALIKALETH THEKKETHIL VEEDU, ERAVICHIRANADUVIL, PATHARAM, SOORANAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. TRANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNAGAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 TO 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19038 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct respondents to implement Ext.P3. 2. Petitioner claims that she is residing close to Sooranad Minor Komalavalliswaram Devi Temple, Sooranad. It is stated that since time immemorial, sweeping works of the Temple were being looked after by the ancestors of the petitioner and that since their death, petitioner is continuing to do the sweeping. According to the petitioner, for the last 18 years, she has been doing the work. 3. Petitioner submits that on 24/4/91, Devaswom Commissioner has passed Ext.P1 order directing her appointment as Sweeper. That was not complied with and therefore the Temple Advisory Committee recommended her case in Ext.P2. Still later, Devaswom Commissioner again issued Ext.P3 on 5/11/2001, directing her appointment as a Part Time Sweeper. It is stated that this order also has not been implemented despite representations made. It is in these circumstances, the writ WPC 19038/09 :2 : petition has been filed. . 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Board. According to the respondents, Komalavalliswaram Temple, where the petitioner alleges that she has been carrying on the work as a Part Time Sweeper is a Grade II Temple within Kumaramchira Subgroup under the Karunagappally Group of the Board. In that Temple, there was no sanctioned post of Sweeper until October 1999 when a sadhyalam was constructed in the Temple premises. It is stated that when a post was sanctioned, a sweeper's post was shifted from Panmana Temple and that the said Sweeper is working in the Temple from 1st of November, 1999. 5. It is the case of the Board that the Board has framed rules prescribing qualification and method of appointment to the post of Temple employees including Sweeper. A copy of Rule is Ext.R2(a) dated 28/3/95, and that if any appointment is to be made, the same can be done only in accordance with the Rule and that no departure is permissible. The averment of the petitioner that from time immemorial, sweeping works in the Temple were being carried out by the predecessors of the WPC 19038/09 :3 : petitioner and by the petitioner is also denied. 6. In so far as Extxs.P1 to P3 are concerned, it is stated that Ext.P1 only directs consideration of the petitioner subject to availability of posts. It is stated that post was not available then. In so far as Ext.P2 issued by the Temple Advisory Committee is concerned, it is stated that though the Temple Advisory Committee did make such recommendation, they have no role at all in the matter of appointments. In so far as Ext.P3 is concerned, the case of the Board is that Ext.P3 is only a recommendation and not a direction to appoint anyone. 7. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. According to the petitioner, inspite of Ext.R2(a) Rules relied on by the Board, practice prevailing in the Board is to make appointment of Part Time Sweepers directly and not following the method laid down in Ext.R2(a). Petitioner has produced Exts.P5 and P6 in support of this contention and swears that the Board is still following this very method and that therefore, the contention of the petitioner raised in the counter affidavit is incorrect. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been doing sweeping work in the Temple since long, and a reading of Exts.P1 WPC 19038/09 :4 : to P3 also indicates that there is substance in what the petitioner says. Still, when it comes to the question of appointment into the regular service of the Board, the Board being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, can make appointments only in compliance with the Rules framed by itself. Ext.R2(a) is the Rule and that Rule was framed way back in 1995 and therefore any appointment since then can only be in compliance thereof. Therefore, Board cannot be expected to act upon the recommendation made by the Commission or the Temple Advisory Committee and depart from the Rule, and at any rate, this Court will not be justified in requiring the Board to drift away from the Rule and make appointments otherwise than in compliance with the Rules. 9. As far as Exts.P1 to P3 are concerned, Ext.P1 only permits appointment subject to availability of posts. From the counter affidavit, what is noticed is that the post of Sweeper was sanctioned only in October 1999. Therefore, even if in 1991 Ext.P1 was issued, irrespective of the validity of the same, the Board could not have appointed the petitioner as Sweeper in the Temple in question. Exts.P2 and P3 cannot be construed as WPC 19038/09 :5 : orders. The Temple Advisory Committee, which has issued Ext.P2 has only recommended her case. Similar is the effect of Ext.P3, which also is a recommendatory letter. Anyway, these communications having been issued after the issuance of Ext.R2 (a), are contrary to the Rules and cannot be enforced muchless in a writ proceedings. 10. Petitioner has referred to Exts.P5 and P6. Exts.P5 and P6 are of 1989, which is prior to Ext.R2(a) Rule. Even otherwise, a reading of these orders show that appointments in question were made in the maramath wing of the Board and not in any Temple. According to the standing counsel, the procedure followed in these two sections are different and one cannot be equated with the other. 11. In essence, the direction sought to implement Ext.P3 is a direction to appoint the petitioner. This cannot be done otherwise than in compliance with Ext.R2(a) Rules. Therefore, I am not persuaded to issue any directions. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp