IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21197 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.K.VIKRAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.KESAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 46 YEARS, PURAM SANTHI MAJOR SREE MAHA DEVA TEMPLE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, AND RESIDING AT CHENTHITTA ILLAM, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, VAIKKOM. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM. 6. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVARPPU, KOTTAYAM. 7. SHRI.N.K.KESAVAN NAMPOOTHIRI, MELSANTHI, THIRUNAKKARA, MAJOR SREE MAHA DEVA TEMPLE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM-686 001. MR.P.GOPAL, SC FOR TDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.21197 of 2010 (Y) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Puram Santhi. He was posted at Thirunakkara Maha Deva Temple. By Ext.P3 order dated 24/05/2010, he was transferred as Melsanthi of Thiruvarppu Temple. It is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Two contentions are raised in this writ petition. One is that the petitioner had opted for a posting at Vijayapuram Temple and that it was without considering his superior claim that he has now been transferred and posted to Thiruvarppu Temple. Second contention is that having regard to his physical condition, the petitioner is not in a position to discharge the duties of Melsanthi at the Thiruvarppu Temple. 3. Insofar as the petitioner's first contention that he is entitled to a posting at Vijayapuram Temple is concerned, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board submits that the WP(C) No.21197/2010 -2- petitioner was posted at Vijayapuram Temple at different spells of time, the last of which was from 23/06/2004 to 31/05/2007. Relying on Clause 10(b) of the Transfer Guidelines, learned Standing Counsel contends that if there are more than one applicant for a particular station, the applicant who does not have service at that station will have preference. It is stated that it was for this reason that the petitioner's request for posting at Vijayapuram Temple could not be considered. 4. The next contention of the petitioner is that he could not have been posted to Thiruvarppu Temple, having regard to his physical condition. Referring to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are other suitable persons available in the services of the respondent Board, who could have been posted to Thiruvarppu Temple and therefore his posting at Thiruvarppu Temple is unjustified. However, learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board points out that in terms of the custom prevailing, only Melsanthies from the four villages, viz., Onamthuruthu, Kidangur, Kadamuri and Kumaranelloor, could be posted to the Thiruvarppu WP(C) No.21197/2010 -3- Temple. It is stated that the petitioner is the only Melsanthi hailing from the one of these villages and available within the Group and that therefore, the petitioner had to be posted. 5. Although in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that there are several other persons, the petitioner has not named any one of Melsanthies available in the services of the Board, who could have been posted to Thiruvarppu Temple. 6. Thus from the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the Board, it is obvious that the petitioner could not have been posted to Vijayapuram Temple as claimed by him in view of Clause 10(b) of the Transfer Guidelines. Further having regard to the custom prevailing, the petitioner is the only Melsanthi available within the Group to be posted at Thiruvarppu Temple. In such circumstances, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with the authorities in posting the petitioner at Thiruvarppu Temple. On the other hand, if according to the petitioner, anybody else is available to be posted at Thiruvarppu Temple, I leave it open to the petitioner to move the 2nd respondent, who thereupon shall pass WP(C) No.21197/2010 -4- appropriate orders dealing with the grievances raised. At last, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the order passed on Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner has not been communicated to him. Although it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board that the appeal has been disposed of by order dated 25/06/2010, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, no order on the appeal has so far been communicated to the petitioner. In view of this, it is directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2nd respondent shall issue to the petitioner a copy of the order said to have been passed on Ext.P4 appeal. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg