IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 6083 of 2007(Y) PETITIONER: -------------------- UDHISH T.U., S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, THEKKUTTAYIL, POST KEECHERY, PERUMMANU, TRICHUR- 680 501. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AUGUSTIAN SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.38149/07 ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6083 & 38149 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions and since a statement has been filed by the respondents, by consent, the writ petitions have been taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience W.P.(C) No.6083/07 is taken as the leading case. 2. By Ext.P1 notification, the first respondent Devaswom invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Mahouts. The petitioners also participated and a select list was prepared and published. Petitioners were included therein. 3. Subsequently, when there were allegations of malpractices in the matter of selection of Mahouts in the Guruvayoor Devaswom, 1st respondent decided to appoint a former Judge of this court, Mr.Justice K.P.Radhakrishna Menon, as the Enquiry Commission. Ext.P3 report indicated that the allegations relating to malpractices in the selection is substantiated. Thereupon, based on the W.P.(C).NO.6083/07 & Con.Case. :: 2 :: findings in the Enquiry Report, notices were issued to certain persons, who were appointed, for terminating their services. This action came to be challenged before this court and ultimately, by Ext.P3 judgment, this court found that persons, who were appointed and those who were included in the rank list are entitled to be heard before they are terminated from service or removed from the rank list. A copy of the enquiry report was also directed to be given to them. The respondents were directed to pass final orders after complying with the said directions. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 judgment reads as follows: “Accordingly, I direct the respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice to all the persons against whom the respondents propose to take action, including persons who are in the rank list, enclosing a copy of the report of the Enquiry Commission and pass orders only after affording them an opportunity to file their objections and of being heard also. It goes without saying that until final orders are passed after complying with the above procedure, the persons against whom action is proposed to be taken shall not either be terminated from service or removed from the rank list.” W.P.(C).NO.6083/07 & Con.Case. :: 3 :: 4. Pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, Ext.P4 show cause notice, along with a copy of the Enquiry Commission Report, was sent to the petitioners. Detailed objection, as Ext.P5 was submitted thereto. A specific request was made for a personal hearing. Apparently, no opportunity of hearing was afforded. Ext.P7 order came to be passed cancelling the appointments already effected and cancelling the rank list also. The same is challenged in this writ petition. In the meantime, steps were taken to appoint Mahouts on daily wages and a notification was published in the dailies. 5. I do not propose to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations raised in this writ petition or the defence taken in the statement, in the light of the fact that the petitioners' allegation, that they were not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing before Ext.P7 order was passed, has been admitted in the statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. The relevant portion of the statement reads as follows: “It is submitted that though a fresh show cause notice along with the copy of the W.P.(C).NO.6083/07 & Con.Case. :: 4 :: enquiry report had been issued as directed by this Hon'ble Court the individuals were not heard in person by the Managing Committee for the second time as they had already been heard earlier.” 6. The earlier hearing, which is referred to in the statement, is a hearing prior to Ext.P3 judgment and apparently that was only in relation to 8 persons, who were appointed from the rank list. Where this court had, in Ext.P3 judgment, specifically directed the 2nd respondent to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein, and an opportunity of hearing was offered in the show cause notice and a request in that regard was reiterated in the objection, the first respondent should have afforded such opportunity. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in part. Ext.P7 order dated 23.6.2007 passed by the Administrator will not be enforced as against the petitioners as such. The petitioners shall be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and after hearing them, the first respondent shall pass fresh orders as already W.P.(C).NO.6083/07 & Con.Case. :: 5 :: directed by this court in Ext.P3 judgment. Since the first respondent is directed to conduct a fresh hearing and pass fresh orders, regular appointment in the post of Mahouts shall not be made till such orders are passed by the first respondent. I make it clear that the appointment of Mahouts on daily wages need not be considered as regular appointment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge