IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 26424 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SELVARAJAN ACHARY P.S.,S/O.SIVAN ACHARI, AGED 40 YEARS,PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU, PUIMKEEZHIL,NALLOOR MURI,MALAYALAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOZENCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. TIRUVATHAMKOOR DEVASWOM BOARD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRUVATHAMKOOR DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRIPPARA DEVASWOM SUB GROUP OFFICE, ARANMULA GROUP. 4. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, ARANMULA GROUP,ARANMULA. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1-4 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.26424 OF 2009 (W) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is working as Takil Lavanon in Trippara Devaswom coming under the Aranmula group. He is aggrieved by Ext.P8, by which, he has been transferred to Neyyattinkara Group. Simultaneously, Ext.P9 show cause notice was also issued on the allegation that he was on unauthorised absence. 2. Facts of the case are that while working in the Aranmula group, according to the petitioner, he applied for leave by Ext.P1 till 30.11.2008 following the expiry of his wife. It is stated that on the expiry of leave, when he reported for duty, he was not permitted to resume duties and was issued Ext.P2 show cause notice. He submitted Ext.P3 explanation and the matter apparently concluded in Exts.P8 and P9. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P8 and P9. 3. Ext.P10 is an explanation that the petitioner submitted against Exts.P9, and Ext.P11 is a representation filed by him seeking cancellation of the transfer by Ext.P8. WPC.No.26424 /09 :2 : 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that being a low paid employee with two young children and an aged mother to look after, he cannot afford to work at a distant place and on that ground he seeks a posting to a nearby temple. It was considering this request that this court had passed an order dated 30.9.2009 directing the respondent to file a statement indicating the existence of vacancies as well. In pursuance to the order the respondents have filed an affidavit in which it is indicated that two posts suitable to the petitioner are lying vacant in the Kollam group and 4 posts are vacant in Punalur group. Petitioner submits that these places are too far. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are vacancies in the nearby temples and the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the availability of vacancies, in the nearby temples for accommodating the petitioner. 6. Proceedings in this writ petition show that it was primarily in view of the objection raised by the devotees and the Advisory Committee that the petitioner was not permitted to continue in Trippara Devaswom. Therefore if there is any vacancy available in the nearby temples, prima facie there does not appear WPC.No.26424 /09 :3 : to be any objection in posting the petitioner. In view of this, the question of availability of the vacancy is a matter for the 2nd respondent to consider and in case vacancies are available it is up to him to decide whether the petitioner can be accommodated in such vacancies. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the petitioner to make a representation to the 2nd respondent requesting for a posting in any of the temples within Aranmula Group or in the nearby areas where the petitioner could be accommodated. It is directed that if such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and orders thereon shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 8. It is clarified that this order shall be without prejudice to any action that the authorities may take on Ext.P9. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/