IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19970 of 2007(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. HARINARAYANAN K., KANDIYIL HOUSE, VELLINEZHI P.O. CHERPLACHERY, PALAKKAD DT. 2. RAJAN.P, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, ELAMPULASSERI P.O., PALAKKAD DT. 3. SUNDARAN K.K., KAIPPANCHERIKUNDIL HOUSE, PARASSERI P.O.KONGAT, VIA.PALAKKAD. 4. PREJITH C.B., EDAKKANDIYIL HOUSE, DEVASWOM QUARTERS, THAMARAYUR, GURUVAYOOR. 5. UNNIKRISHNAN U., UNNITHIRU HOUSE, KOTTAPPADI P.O. THRISSUR. 6. JAYARAMAN P.V., VARIKKARA HOUSE, PADINHATTAM OZHUVAL, NEELESWAR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (SR.) , S.C, FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19970/2007-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. R1-7557/05 DT. 28/09/2005 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 17/01/2006 IN W.P.(C). NO. 36141/05. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DT. 11/10/05 OF THE P.2. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DT. 03/10/05 OF THE P.4. EXT.P.3.B: COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DT. 14/10/05 OF THE P.6. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN `MALAYALA MANORAMA' DTD. 25/12/05. EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE PREPARING THE RANK LIST OF MAHOUTS DT. NIL. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.2. VIDE B1.954/06 DT. 2/01/06. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN `MALAYALA MANORAMA' DAILY DT. 17/06/2006. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VIDE B1.5398/06 DT. 17/06/2006. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 20/06/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 26/06/2006 IN W.P.(C). NO. 16008/06. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE B1.5398/06 DT. 31/07/06 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER (JUSTICE K.P. RADHAKRISHNA MENON COMMISSION) DT. 06/05/2006. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPLY DT. 29/08/06 SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ORDER B1.5398/2006 DT. 23/06/07 RENDERED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B-5398/06 DTD. 04/07/07 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.16 DTD. 06/02/08 OF THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B-1712/08 DTD. 12/05/08 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 19970 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The Guruvayoor Devaswom Board issued a notification inviting applications for the post of Mahout from among eligible Hindu candidates. On the publication of the notification, a writ petition WPC.No.36141/2005 was filed by the Guruvayoor Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi challenging the said notification on the ground that proper guidelines were not laid down in the matter of qualification. This court by Ext.P2 judgment rejected the said contention finding that the qualifications are prescribed in the Regulations and the same has been mentioned in the notification also. The petitioners had submitted applications along with the experience certificate. Apparently there were 120 applicants altogether and ultimately a rank list of 27 candidates were prepared by Ext.P4. By Ext.P5 the petitioners were appointed. The petitioners continued in duty. An allegation was raised against one of the members of the Managing Committee. Justice K.P.Radhakrishna Menon was appointed as the Enquiry Commissioner. The learned Judge submitted a report. It seems that the report did not contain any positive finding as regards the corruption for selection of Mahout. But WPC.19970 /2008 2 nevertheless there is a finding to the effect that the persons selected were not adequately qualified in the sense that they did not produce certificate evidencing the fact that they had obtained training in looking after the elephants. Based on the enqiry report the services of the petitioners were terminated. This was challenged before this court. By Ext.P9 this court set aside the proceedings of the Devaswom essentially on the ground that copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the petitioners. The petitioners were to be given an opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, a fresh show cause notice was issued as Ext.P10. Copy of the enquiry report as Ext.P11 was also served on the petitioners. They submitted Ext.P12 reply and thereafter Ext.P13 order was passed affirming the earlier stand taken by the Committee. Ext.P13 has been challenged by the petitioners. 2. Though several contentions have been raised in this writ petition challenging the order of termination Ext.P13, I am inclined to remit the matter to the Devaswom Board essentially for the reason that the petitioners were not heard before passing orders. There is no hearing prior to Ext.P13. It cannot be said that the hearing is a formality. There is every chance of the committee taking a different view at the personal hearing. 3. In the result, Ext.P13 order is set aside and the first WPC.19970 /2008 3 respondent is directed to take fresh order pursuant to Ext.P10 show cause notice after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners or their authorised representative. Such order shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment . 4. It is made clear that if any person has been appointed as Mahout on provisional basis during the pendency of this writ petition, then obviously no such person shall be regularised in service, until a decision is taken by the Managing Committee. Further if by any chance the committee is desirous of the service of any person as Mahout, on a provisional basis, then subject to suitability the petitioners may also be considered in that regard. I make it clear that I have not considered the other contentions raised by the petitioners on merits. They are left open. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC.19970 /2008 4