IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9388 of 2009(P) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SARI,W/O RAJAGOPALAN,AGED 39 YEARS, AIKKARA HOUSE, BEHIND PWD REST HOUSE, KATTOOR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADVS.MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SREE KOODALMANIKYAM DEVASWAM REP.BY ADMINISTRATION, O/o SREE KOODALMANIKYAM DEVASWAM, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. STATE REP.BY SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF DEVASWAM,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,REP. BY SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 MR.S.SUJIN FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.RAMESH FOR R2 BY ADV. MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9388/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY ON 3.7.07. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 25.7.07. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DEVASWAM UNDER THE RIGHT OF INFORMATION ACT DT. 28.3.09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT. 24.6.08. R1(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 26.6.08 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. R1(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 5.9.08 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. R1(d):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 3.11.08 FROM HE STATE GOVT. IN THE REVENUE DEPT. TO THE IST RESPONDENT. R1(e):- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT. 29.11.08. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 9388 of 2009-P - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant to the post of L.D. Clerk pursuant to the notification dated 29.6.2007 issued by the first respondent Devaswom. The main complaint raised by the petitioner is that the Devaswom is not completing the selection process, but is resorting to delaying tactics and also is not contemplating appointment through Public Service Commission. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Devaswom has already issued a notification, they are bound to complete the selection process. In the meanwhile, the Devaswom has resorted to temporary appointments and the attempt is to regularise them. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is averred that the Devaswom managing committee, as per Ext.R1(a) resolution dated 24.6.2008 decided to entrust the recruitment to the administrative posts in the Devaswom after cancelling Ext.P1 notification. The first respondent requested the Government to accord sanction for the decision taken as per Ext.R1(a). Ext.R1(c) is the further reminder sent by the Devaswom to the Government. Ext.R1(d) reply received from the Government shows that wpc 9388/2009 2 the Government is taking steps in the matter by amending the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Act. The Government has also given permission for the managing committee to take appropriate decision regarding the cancellation of the notification after returning the amount that was paid by the applicants. Accordingly, the managing committee, as per Ext.R1(e) resolution, decided to cancel Ext.P1 notification and to return the fee collected from the applicants. Following up action has already been taken and the petitioner has also received the fee remitted at the time of submission of the application. 4. In the above view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. Even though the petitioner has sought for a relief by way of quashing Ext.P3, none of the rights of the petitioner is affected by the said step taken by the Devaswom. As regards temporary appointments made, it is obvious that the managing committee will have to tide over the necessities of the administration of the Temple and therefore they may have to resort to temporary appointments also. If the Government decides not to amend the Act in terms of the request made by the Devaswom, then it will wpc 9388/2009 3 be for the Devaswom to initiate fresh proceedings by way of issuing notification to fill up the vacant posts. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/