IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20429 of 2011(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SANTHOSH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, MALAYATH 'NANDANAM', KADAMPUZHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.GOPALAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE MANAGING TRUSTEE, SHREE KADAMPUZHA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, KADAMPUZHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 553. 2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SHREE KADAMPUZHA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, KADAMPUZHA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 553. 3. COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSE FED COMPLEX, ERANJIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673006. R-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 20429/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPIES OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ACQUITTANCE REGISTER OF THE TEMPLE. P2: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD. P3: COPY OF CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD. P4: COPY OF APPLICATION FROM PETITIONER. P5: COPY OF ORDER FROM COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD. P6: COPY OF NOTE FROM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER REGARDIDNG VACANCIES. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.20429 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner had worked on daily wage basis as Upper Division Clerk under Shree Kadampuzha Bhagavathy Devaswom. According to the petitioner, from January, 2002 till November 2007, he was engaged as such in service and thereafter, he was disengaged. Subsequently, the petitioner got a temporary job at Navamukunda Temple and he is presently working there. In the meanwhile, the Malabar Devaswom Board came into existence. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 carrying a request for appointment under Shree Kadampuzha Bhagavathy Devaswom before the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board. The same was rejected as per Ext.P5 holding that there is no practice or provision for regularising daily wage employees who put in such service for three years. The petitioner is not challenging Ext.P5 in this Writ Petition. The prayer in Ext.P4 was to re-appoint the petitioner. However, it is a fact that at no point of time, the petitioner was appointed under Shree Kadampuzha Bhagavathy Devaswom. True that he was engaged on daily wage basis W.P.(C) NO.20429 of 2011 2 and thereafter, he was disengaged, admittedly, in November, 2007 and thereafter, he has been working at Navamunkunda Temple. No materials have been produced along with this Writ Petition to show that persons who had put in service on daily wage basis under the Shree Kadampuzha Bhagavathy Devaswom are entitled to seek reappointment thereunder on constitution of the Malabar Devaswom Board as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner has no case that a scheme was evolved to regularise or re-appoint persons who had, earlier put in a particular length of service under the Shree Kadampuzha Bhagavathy Devaswom, between a particular period. Ext.P6 is only a recommendation to regularise persons who have been continuously working under the Devaswom for considerably long period. Even in their case, it is only a recommendation. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner was disengaged in November, 2007 and since then, he has been working in another temple. That apart, there is no challenge against Ext.P5. I am of the considered view that in the said circumstances, the fact that he had put in service on daily wage basis for some period, long ago, cannot confer on him any right to claim re-appointment. The contention of the petitioner that vacancies are existing under Kadampuzha Bhagavathy Devaswom cannot be a reason to direct re-consideration of Ext.P4 in the W.P.(C) NO.20429 of 2011 3 circumstances especially, taking into the fact that Ext.P4 was rejected as per Ext.P5 and that Ext.P5 was not challenged by the petitioner at any point of time. There is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is liable to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.20429 of 2011 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010