IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19366 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- S.SREELATHA,SUPERITENDENT DEVASWOM ACCOUNTS OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD. 3. CHIEF COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD. 4. COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD. 5. G.ANIL KUMAR ASSISTANT AUDIT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ALUVA. 6. R.G.RADHAKRISHNAN ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LEGAL AFFAIRS, D.C.OFFICE. 7. BABY S.SUPRIYA ASSISTANT SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 19366 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Officer of the 1st respondent Board in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner/Administrative Officer. She was working as a Superintendent in the Accounts Section at the Board office. 2. Prior to the general transfers of 2010-11, she exercised her option to be posted as Administrative Officer at the Malayalapuzha Temple, Thiruvallam Temple and Varkala Temple. However, by Ext.P1 order, she was posted as Administrative Officer at Peroor Devaswom in Ulloor and the 5th respondent was posted to Malayalapuzha Temple, the 6th respondent was posted to Thiruvallam Temple and the 7th respondent was posted to Varkala Temple. She filed Ext.P2 appeal. In Ext.P3 revised order also, there was no change as far as the petitioner was concerned. It was thereupon that writ petition was filed challenging the posting of respondents 5 to 7. 3. In this writ petition, the main challenge of the petitioner is against the posting given to respondents 5 and 6. WPC No. 19366/10 :2 : According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the matter of transfer and postings, Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) are the guidelines. It is stated that going by Ext.R4(b), in respect of the temples opted by her, if there are more than one applicant, those among the applicants who were not posted after 1995 in the temples opted will be considered for posting based on their seniority. According to the petitioner, it was overlooking the aforesaid provision in the guideline that the impugned order of transfer and postings were given. To substantiate that contention, petitioner has averred in para 7(i) and (ii) as follows: i. As far as the 5th respondent is concerned, who is now appointed as the Administrative Officer of Malayalapuzha Temple, he had already served in all the major temples under the Board such as Malayalapuzha, Chettikulangara, Ettumanoor, Sabarimala etc. Hence it can be seen that the respondent Board was gracious enough to permit him to serve in the premier temples of the Board whereas the petitioner inspite of the request was not able to serve in any one of the important temples under the Board. ii. As far as the 6th respondent is concerned, he is the junior most in the cadre of Assistant Devaswom Commissioner/Administrative Officer. But, he was given a posting as the Administrative Officer at Thiruvallam Temple, a prestigious temple under the administration of the Board. In so far as the averment regarding the 5th respondent is WPC No. 19366/10 :3 : concerned, in para 8 of the counter affidavit, it is stated thus:- Sri.Anilkumar.G. entered service on 26.10.1978. He was promoted in the cadre of Assistant Devaswom Commissioner/Administrative Officer on 31/5/2001. He had worked as Administrative Officer of Sabarimala temple for the period from 7/2007 to 8/2008 and thereafter as Assistant Devaswom Commissioner of Thiruvalla Group from 6/2008 to 7/2009. In the general Transfer 2009-10 he was ordered to be posted as Administrative Officer of Malayalppuzha temple. The said order was modified in appeal and he was ordered to be posted as Administrative Officer of Ettumannur Temple. He did not join duty as Administrative Officer of Ettumannur temple in pursuance to the order of this Hon'ble Court dt 26.8.2009 in WP(C) No.31326 of 2008 posting Sri.K.Rajan as Administrative Officer of Ettumannur temple in connection with the Dhwaja Punaprathista of Ettumannur temple. Hence he was posted as Assistant Audit Officer, Alwaye. He is working in the said post from 7/2009 onwards. 4. This therefore shows that the averment of the petitioner that the 5th respondent had previous posting at Malayalapuzha is factually incorrect. Therefore, the objection as far as the posting of the 5th respondent is only to be rejected. 5. In so far as the 6th respondent is concerned, though the Board has accepted that fact that the 6th respondent is junior to the petitioner, the justification offered by the Board to prefer the 6th respondent is contained in para 10 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:- The petitioner has opted, Thiruvallam temple as her WPC No. 19366/10 :4 : 2nd choice. Thiruvallam temple is a Grade I temple within the Thiruvananthapuram Group of the Board. The main deity of the temple is 'Lord Parasuraman'. The sanctum sanctorum of the temple will open at 3.45 a.m and close at 11.30 a.m and in the evening from 5.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m on normal days. 'Bali Tharpanam' is one of the important ceremony conducted in the temple every day. It is conducted inside the Nalambalam of the temple and at Kadavus of the temple. The Bali Tharpanam will start in the morning after sun rise and will go on till noon every day. The sanctum sanctorum of the temple will close only after the Bali Tharpanam is over. About 350 persons will come to the temple for Bali Tharpanam every day. On Karutha vavu day more than 1000 persons will come to the temple for Bali Tharpanam. The sanctum sanctorum will open in the morning at 2.00 am and will close by 1.30 p.m and in the evening from 5.00 p.m to 8.00 p.m. During the month of karkidakam and on the 'karkidaka vavu' day special arrangements are made in the temple compound for Bali Tharpanam. The duration of Bali Tharpanam on the karkidaka vavu day will be 24 hours. In the remaining days of the karikidakam month there will be heavy rush of devotees for Bali Tharpanam. On account of the heavy rush of devotees coming to the temple for worship and for Bali Tharpanam more staffs are deputed in the temple. In order to carry out the normal poojas of the temple and for conducting Bali Tharpanam on normal days and on important days smoothly without any complaints, the Administrative Officer of the temple should be present in the temple from early morning onwards till the temple is closed. The temple is situated in a sensitive problematic area and there is every possibility for interfering with the smooth administration of the temple. I submit that the role of Administrative Officer in the administration of the temple is to conduct annual festival, to supervise the rituals, poojas and important ceremonies in the temple and to manage the subordinate officers. These aspects have to be WPC No. 19366/10 :5 : taken into account while deciding the suitability of an officer in the temple. There were 9 applicants to the post of Administrative Officer of the Thiruvallam temple. Out of the 9 applicants, 7 were male employees and 2 were women employees. After considering the claim of 9 employees, I have posted Sri.R.G.Radhakrishnan as Administrative Officer of the Thiruvallam Temple. Sri.R.G.Radhakrishnan entered service on 7/3/1986. He was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Devaswom Commissioner/Administrative Officer on 21.2.2009. He had also worked as Administrative Officer of Ambalappuzha temple for the period from 2/2009 to 7/2009 and has the experience to administer the affairs of Parasurama temple smoothly. He is a native of Thiruvananthapuram and is residing at Thirumala. The distance from the residence of the petitioner to Thiruvallam temple is about 7 km. 6. According to the Board, it is in the aforesaid exigencies of service that they had to depart from the normal rule of seniority and give posting to the 6th respondent. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that seniority has been overlooked in the matter of seniority to Thiruvallam Temple. According to her, even if the averments in para 10 of the counter affidavit are accepted, she has been denied posting at the temple on the ground that she is a lady and therefore she has been discriminated on grounds of sex, which according to the petitioner is impermissible. 8. In my view, although discrimination on the ground of WPC No. 19366/10 :6 : sex as such is impermissible, a reading of the averments in para 10 of the counter affidavit shows that it is fully in the exigencies of service and in public interest that the Board has chosen the 6th respondent for posting at the Thiruvallam Temple. They have also found that considering the nature of the duties to be discharged, the working hours involved and the sensitivity of the area, it will not be possible for the petitioner to efficiently discharge the duties, which she will have to discharge. In such a case, I am not persuaded to accept the plea of the counsel for the petitioner that any discrimination has been practiced by the Board. Further, even if it is assumed that posting of the 6th respondent is in deviation of the provisions contained in Ext.R4(a), Ext.R4(b) being only a guideline, departure therefrom is permissible if the exigencies of service so warrant. 9. In this case, I am satisfied that departure has been made in the exigencies of service, and therefore, the departure by itself does not vitiate the proceedings. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised against the posting of respondents 5 and 6. In this context, I should also take note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Board that the petitioner has WPC No. 19366/10 :7 : been posted in a Grade I temple which is only 3 kms away from the residence of the petitioner. Therefore, no ground of inconvenience is also caused to the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp