IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13500 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- K.V.PRAVEEN KUMAR,PUROHITAN, THIRUVALLOM DEVASWOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. N.VIJAYA KUMAR ELAYATH,KADAVIL PUROHITAN,THIRUVALLOM DEVASWOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R1-R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.13500 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Sri.Praveen Kumar, the petitioner herein, filed this writ petition against the appointment made by the third respondent alleging that the action of appointment of the third respondent is actuated by malafides and the rightful claimant for the post is the petitioner himself. It is also alleged that several complaints including vigilance inquiry were initiated alleging insubordination. This is seriously opposed by the third respondent in his counter affidavit filed. 2. On the basis of the consensus reached between the parties, it is not necessary to go into the rival contentions raised in the writ petition. 3. It is a fact that the third respondent was the Purohit earlier. Whether he was the Purohit in the Thiruvallom temple or in Thirtha Kadavu is in dispute. The third respondent would contend that there was only one Purohit for both the temple and the WPC.13500/2009. 2 kadavu and he was the priest in charge of the same at the relevant time prior to the appointment of the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the third respondent was subjected to certain disciplinary action taken by the Devaswom and finally he has been reinstated. In the meantime, the petitioner was appointed and now he continues as priest. While reinstating the third respondent he has been posted as priest in the temple. It is contended in the writ petition that at any rate the third respondent could not have been posted as Purohit in the temple. 4. Thus, facts being in serious dispute between the parties, it will be appropriate as agreed between the parties that a final decision be taken after hearing all concerned by the Chief Commissioner. We direct the Chief Commissioner to take a final decision in the matter after hearing all concerned. A copy of the writ petition along with this judgment may be placed before the Chief Commissioner by either of the parties. A decision will be taken by the Chief Commissioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from today. The interim arrangement made by WPC.13500/2009. 3 this court will continue till then and based on the decision taken appropriate orders will be issued by the Chief Commissioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.