IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21496 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- E.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, PRESENTLY WORKING AS 'MELSHANTI' AT KADINAMKULAM MAHADEVA TEMPLE, KADINAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT TC 5/2257, KNRA-94, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SC SRI. P. GOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.21496 OF 2010(J) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Santhi under the first respondent Board. He was working at Kedamangalam Temple and by Ext.P4 he has been transferred and posted at Kadinamkulam Temple. According to the petitioner he had exercised his options for posting at OTC Hanuman Temple, Peroor Devaswom and Ulloor Devaswom and that it was overlooking his options he was posted by Ext.P5. According to the petitioner, his appeal was rejected by Ext.P6 without adverting to the contentions raised by him. 2. In so far as this grievance of the petitioner is concerned, the standing counsel has obtained instructions and submits that though the petitioner has exercised the options as claimed by him, there was no vacancy at OTC Temple and Ulloor Devaswom. It is stated that as far as Peroor Devaswom is concerned, since the petitioner had worked in that station during the year 2006-07 he was ineligible for a posting at that station. It is submitted that it was for this reason that his options could not be accepted. WPC.No. 21496/2010 :2 : 3. Yet another grievance of the petitioner is that when applications were invited for posting at Sabarimala and Pamba Devaswoms, though he had applied and was interviewed, he was not considered. In so far as this complaint is concerned, Standing Counsel submits that with regard to certain misconducts committed by the petitioner, while working at Kedamangalam Temple, an enquiry was conducted and reports were submitted by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner confirming the allegations. It is stated that finally by order dated 3.7.2010, the Commissioner had ordered not to post the petitioner in Gr.I temples for a period of 2 years. It is stated that it was for this reason the petitioner was not considered for Sabarimala and Pamba Devaswoms. 4. The validity of the enquiry or the order dated 3.7.2010 are not the subject matter of this Writ Petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings culminating in the final order that is passed, it is for the petitioner to pursue the remedies against those proceedings. As far as this case is concerned, his grievance is that his claim for posting at Sabarimala and Pamba has been overlooked. If as a matter of fact the order dated 3.7.2010 is in WPC.No. 21496/2010 :3 : force prohibiting posting of the petitioner in Grd.I temples for a period of 2 years, so long as that order remains in force, respondents cannot be directed to post the petitioner as claimed by him. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/