IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 362 of 2009(R) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.RAJENDRAN, VAZHIPAD CLERK,SREE VAIRAMKODE BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. UNNIKRISHNAN K. DEVASWOM SECURITY SREE VAIRAMKODE BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE. 2. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE TRUSTEE BOARD, SREE VAIRAMKODE BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE VAIRAMKODE BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM, THIRUNAVAYA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. M.VENUGOPAL, S/O.REGHAVA MENON, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MAMPATTA HOUSE, K.PURAM TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON FOR R3 SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR FOR R4 SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN.C.H FOR R4 SMT.R.RANJINI FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.362/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF MINUTES OF the TRUSTEE BOARD DATED 27/03/2007. P2 : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MINUTES OF the TRUSTEE BOARD DATED 12/08/2008. P3 : COPY OF NOTICE DATED 13/08/2008 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEVASWOM. P4 : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 28/08/2008 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. P5 : COPY OF JOINING REPORT DATED 01/09/2008 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. P6 : COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 28/08/2008 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. P7 : COPY OF JOINING REPORT DATED 01/09/2008 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. P8 : COPY OF ORDER FROM R4 DATED 20/12/2008 TO THE PETITIONERS. P9 : COPY OF SCHEME PUBLISHED IN MALAPPURAM GAZETTE DATED 25/11/82. P10 : COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 20/12/2008 BEFORE R3. P11 : COPY OF STAY PETITION BEFORE R3 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. P12 : COPY OF STAY ORDER ISSUED BY R3 DATED 21/12/2008. P13 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 26/12/2008 BY THE RESPONDENT. 14 : COPY OF REVISION PETITION & STAY PETTION BEFORE R1 FILED BY R4 DATED 26/12/2008. P15 : COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 27/09/2007. P16 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION OF R2 TO THE ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVESWOM), TRIVANDRUM DATED 20/02/2008. P17 : COPY OF PROCEEDIGNS OF THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 05/05/2009. WPC NO.362/2009 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3A : COPY OF RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE DATED 27/09/2007. R3B : COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 20/02/2008 SENT BY R1 COMMISSIONER. R1(a) : COPY OF ORDER NO.HR.16.1119/08/MDB DATED 18/12/2008 OF THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.362 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P13, an order passed by the 1st respondent, staying Ext.P12. 2. The 3rd respondent appointed the petitioners as Devaswom Clerk and Watchman respectively by Exts.P4 to P6 orders, pursuant to which they joined the posts. Subsequently, pursuant to Ext.R1(a) order passed by the Commissioner, Ext.P8 order was issued by the 4th respondent terminating their services. They filed Ext.P10 appeal to the 3rd respondent, in which Ext.P11 order of stay was passed. Subsequently, by Ext.P12, the appeal itself was allowed. Aggrieved by Ext.P12, the 4th respondent filed Ext.14 revision to the 1st respondent, in which Ext.P13 order of stay was passed. As a result of Ext.P13, Ext.P8 order of termination was revived and it is in this context, this writ petition was filed. 3. Among the various contentions raised, one of the contentions was that the 1st respondent lacks jurisdiction to have WP(C) No.362/2009 -2- entertained Ext.P14 for the reason that Clause 7 of Ext.P9 Scheme provides only for an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. However, having regard to the fact that Section 18 of the Act confers power on the Commissioner to call for records and pass orders, I feel there is no reason to hold that Ext.P14 was not maintainable. 4. Then it was rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in Ext.P14 revision filed by the 4th respondent, the petitioners are not impleaded as parties, and therefore, Ext.P13 order passed without notice to them is illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Having gone through Exts.P13 & P14 referred to above, I am inclined to agree with the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of the petitioners being impleaded in the revision, the Commissioner should not have passed Ext.P13. Therefore, Ext.P13 order of stay cannot survive, and is set aside. 5. I am not impressed by the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the impugned orders of termination having been issued pursuant to Ext.R1(a) order of the WP(C) No.362/2009 -3- Commissioner, they cannot expect justice from the Commissioner. First of all, no personal malafides is urged against the Commissioner, and in any case, on the available material, there cannot be any such finding. Secondly, the Commissioner is the authority vested with power under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, the designated authority alone can exercise the power. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- That the Commissioner shall implead the petitioners as additional respondents to Ext.P14 revision filed by the 4th respondent, issue notice and hear them, and only thereafter shall pass final orders on Ext.P14 revision filed by the 4th respondent. It is directed that until the matter is heard and disposed of as above, the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in service pursuant to Exts.P4 to P6 orders of their appointment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg