IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 Con.Case(C).No. 601 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11932/2011 Dated 06/05/2011 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P(C): --------------------------------------------------------- K.B.SREEKUMAR, S/O.BHASKARA MARAR, AGED 44 YEARS, WORKING AS SAMBANDHI, KODUNGUR DEVASWOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT AND RESIDING AT MALIYEKKAL, CHIRAKKADAVU CENTRE P.O., PONKUNNAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: --------------- SHRI.K.RAJAN, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, WORKING AS ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. ADV. SRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD FOR R1 THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ Cont. Case No: 601 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd August , 2011. JUDGMENT This petition has been filed by the writ petitioner in W.P(C) 11932/2011 alleging that the respondent is guilty of contempt of this court inasmuch as he has issued Annexure 3 order of general transfer in gross violation of the interim order dated 6-5-2011 passed by this Court. 2. The petitioner had filed W.P(C) 11932/2011 challenging an order of the respondent evidenced in the said writ petition by Ext.P12, by which a newly appointed person was posted to Chirakkadavu, to which place the petitioner had been requesting for a transfer. The petitioner who is working as a Sambandhi under the respondent had earlier filed W.P(C) 18142/2009 challenging his transfer to Kodungur Devaswom. He had earlier been working at the Major Cheruvally Bhagavathy Temple. He wanted to be retained at Cheruvally till a vacancy arose at Chirakkadavu. This Court, as per judgment dated 6-8-2009 relegated the petitioner to his remedy of filing an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the transfer guidelines. The Devaswom Commissioner was also directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. Accordingly, an Coc 601/2011 2 order was passed by the Devaswom Commissioner on 1-10-2009, evidenced herein by Annexure R1(a) directing that the request of the petitioner be considered in accordance with the guidelines for transfer as and when a vacancy arises under the Chirakkadavu Devaswom. The direction was issued to the respondent herein. The complaint of the petitioner is that though a vacancy had arisen in the Chirakkadavu Devaswom, on the retirement of one Ramachandra Panicker {wrongly referrred to as Damodara Panicker in Annexure R1(a)}, he was not given a posting at Chirakkadavu Devaswom. Therefore, he challenged the action of the respondent in W.P(C) 11932/2011. As per interim order dated 6-5-2011 though the respondent was directed to consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with the directions of the Devaswom Commissioner referred to above, Annexure 3 order of general transfer has been issued, according to the petitioner, without considering his claims. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the respondent is guilty of contempt of this Court. 3. In answer to the allegations made by the petitioner, a verified petition was initially filed by the Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board producing Annexure R1(a), copy of proceedings dated 19-5-2011 issued by the respondent, rejecting the request for transfer submitted by the petitioner. Subsequently, Coc 601/2011 3 in support of I.A.450/2011, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent producing Annexures R1(a) and R1(b) documents. According to the respondent, the Devaswom Commissioner had only directed the respondent to consider the request for transfer submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with the norms for general transfer, as and when a vacancy arises at Chirakkadavu. It is pointed out that the general transfer made for the year 2011 is evidenced by Annexure 3 proceedings dated 19-5-2011. Since no vacancy was available at the time of general transfer, the request for transfer submitted by the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, it is contended that the interim order of this Court has been complied with, in its letter and spirit. 4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit refuting the assertions of the respondent. The petitioner has produced Annexure 8 document to show that on 30-11-2010 one Shri. R.Suresh had been posted to Chirakkadavu in the retirement vacancy of Shri. Ramachandra Panicker (wrongly referred to as Damodara Panicker), the vacancy pointed out by the petitioner. It is contended that the posting given to said Suresh was lacking in bonafides. Shri. Suresh being a new recruit, could have been posted to the petitioner's posting place and the petitioner could have been accommodated at Chirakkadavu. The above course was Coc 601/2011 4 not adopted by the respondent deliberately, with a view to overreaching the orders of this Court. Therefore, it is contended that the respondent is guilty of contempt of this court. 5. I have heard counsel for both sides at length. 6. It is no doubt true that the petitioner has been requesting for a posting to Chirakkadavu. As per Annexure 4 judgment the Devaswom Commissioner was directed to consider his request and to pass orders on the appeal filed by him challenging his transfer. The petitioner was also directed to join duty at the place to which he had been transferred, subject to orders to be passed by the Devaswom Commissioner. It is pursuant to the said direction of this Court that the Devaswom Commissioner considered the request of the petitioner and passed Annexure 6 order (same as Annexure R1(a). In Annexure 6, the respondent has been directed to consider the request of the petitioner for a transfer to Chirakkadavu, in accordance with the guidelines for transfer, as and when a vacancy arises at the Chirakkadavu Devaswom. 7. The contention of the petitioner is that though a vacancy had arisen on the retirement of Shri. Ramachandra Panicker (wrongly referred to as Damodara Panicker), he was not given a posting to the said vacancy. However, it is to be noted that the said vacancy had arisen in October 2010. The explanation of the Coc 601/2011 5 respondent is that since the vacancy had not arisen at the time of general transfer he could not do anything in the matter at that time. Apart from the above, as per order dated 30-11-2010, the Devaswom Commissioner who is a superior officer, posted one Suresh to the said vacancy as evidenced by Annexure 8 proceedings. Therefore, the said vacancy ceased to exist, at the time of the general transfer for the year 2011. It was in the said circumstances that Annexure 3 order of general transfer was issued. Since no vacancy was subsisting at Chirakkadavu Devaswom at the time of general transfer, the petitioner's request was rejected as per Annexure R1(b) proceedings. 8. It is worth noticing that though the Devaswom Commissioner had directed the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner as per Annexure 6 order dated 1-10-2009, the same was to be considered in accordance with the guidelines for general transfer, as and when a vacancy was available. The same Devaswom Commissioner had on 30-11-2010 posted one Suresh to the vacancy of Shri. Ramachandra Panicker (wrongly referred as Damodara Panicker) and, therefore as rightly submitted by the counsel for the respondent, the said vacancy was not available at the time of general transfer for the year 2011. In view of the above, the respondent cannot be found fault with for having issued Coc 601/2011 6 Annexure 3 order of general transfer, without granting the request of the petitioner for a transfer to Chirakkadavu. 9. As per the interim order dated 6-5-2011, what has been ordered is to consider the request of the petitioner, in compliance with the order of the Devaswom Commissioner. The interim order is extracted hereunder for easy reference:- “Admit. Advocate Shri. P.Gopal appears for respondents 1 to 5. Issue urgent notice by speed post to the 6th respondent. There shall be an interim direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner as ordered in Ext.P10 order of the 2nd respondent, while implementing the general transfer for the year 2011 and pass appropriate orders thereon.” It is clear from a reading of the above direction that what was ordered was to consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with the direction in Annexure 6 order, while implementing the general transfer for the year 2011. As already noted above, since there was no available vacancy at Chirakkadavu at the time of implementing the general transfer, the respondent cannot be found fault with for not having considered the request of the petitioner for transfer favourably. As per Ext.R1(b) proceedings, the request for transfer submitted by the petitioner has also been rejected. The Coc 601/2011 7 reason stated therein is that since no person has been transferred from Chirakkadavu Devaswom as per the general transfer, the request of the petitioner could not be granted. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondent, the vacancy that arose in October 2010 at Chirakkadavu Devaswom has been filled up as early as on 30-11-2011, long before the issue of Annexure 3 order of general transfer. 10. The above being the position, I do not find any reason to conclude that the respondent is guilty of contempt of this Court or of any act of trying to overreach the direction contained in the interim order dated 6-5-2011 of this Court. If the petitioner has any grievance against the orders passed by the respondent, it is certainly open to him to challenge the said proceedings in his writ petition. I do not find any grounds to initiate action in contempt against the respondent. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj Coc 601/2011 8