IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8403 of 2007(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.K.KESAVAN,S/O.KESAVAN NAMBOODIRI, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM,PAZHAICHIYIL,PILTHARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER,HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT,KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER,HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT,THALASSERY. 3. THE MANAGING TRUSTEE,ARATHIL SREE BHADRAPURAM KSHETHRAM,PAZHACHIYIL,CHERUTHAZHAM, P.O NAREEMKAMVALLY,KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. MR.M.SASINDRAN FOR R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.T.K.MOHANAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 8403 Of 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that his service as a clerk, appointed as per Ext.P1 order issued by the third respondent, has been terminated vide Ext.P3, which is stated as issued pursuant to Ext.P4 issued by the second respondent. Though the same has been subjected to challenge by filing Ext.P6 appeal before the first respondent, it is stated as not received; which has made the petitioner to approach this Court. 2. The petitioner submits that he commenced service as a clerk in the 3rd respondent temple w.e.f. 1.8.2005 and was being paid his salary till February, 2006. However, the said appointment was not approved by the statutory authorities, despite the many a representation filed by the petitioner including Ext.P2. 3. While so, the third respondent, as per Ext. P3 order dated 10.2.2007, put an end of the service of the petitioner, stating that the second respondent as Ext.P4 had rejected the request for approval for the reason that the post of clerk was not in existence as on 1.1.95; which assertion is rebutted by the petitioner referring to Ext.P5 proceedings showing the existence of the post. However, the reliance placed on Ext.P5 has been disputed by the respondents in their counter WP(C ) No. 8403 of 2007 : 2 : affidavit. The case of the petitioner is that despite his filing Ext.P6 appeal before the first respondent, the same has not been considered, obviously for the reason pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent stating that such appeal was not received. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Ext.P7 postal acknowledgment card produced along with reply affidavit asserts that the contention raised by the first respondent in this regard as to the non-receipt of the appeal can only be wrong; which appears to be correct. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, the first respondent is hereby directed to consider Ext.P6 appeal and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for taking further steps. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd