IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY, 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1930 WP(C).No. 21515 of 2004(J) PETITIONER: ---------------- ZAMORIN RAJA OF CALICUT, MANAGING TRUSTEE, SREE PERUMANNA DEVASWOM, TALI CENTRAL OFFICE, POST TALI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.SEN (SR.) SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER, HR & CE ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE-20. 2. K.M. SANKARANARAYANA SARMA, S/O. VASUDEVAN MOOSAD, POST PERUMANA, PERUMANNA AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 SMT.SMITHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (WP(C) No. 21515 OF 2004) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: Copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dtd.21.10.2002. Ext.P2: Copy of the order dtd.7.1.2003 by Zamorin Raja of Calicut. Ext.P3: Copy of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dtd.24.7.2003. Ext.P4: Copy of the order passed by the 1 st respondent dtd.21.2.2004. -True Copy- P.A.to Judge. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 21515 of 2004 J --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair,J: The second respondent was appointed as a provisional employee (Vazhipad Clerk) in the temple managed by the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that he was neither qualified nor was he attending the work. Therefore, he was terminated. Even though the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order finding that the second respondent was not qualified, the Commissioner on further appeal by the second respondent held that termination is not in accordance with the procedure inasmuch as no opportunity was granted to the second respondent before orders are passed. It is the statement of the Deputy Commissioner that minimum qualification required is S.S.L.C. and if the second respondent does not have the same, there is nothing wrong in his termination from temporary employment. The petitioner's counsel submits that second respondent is out of service and another WP(C) NO.21515 of 2004 :-2-: person is working in the post. Obviously, the second respondent is not interested in the matter and therefore, the writ petition is closed, leaving freedom to the petitioner to challenge the Commissioner's order again if the second respondent presses for reinstatement. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ WP(C) NO.21515 of 2004 :-3-: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A.NO. 81 OF 2000 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T DATED:17-6-2008 WP(C) NO.21515 of 2004 :-4-: