IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 27897 of 2008(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SRI.KESAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, SANTHI, POOZHIKUNNU DEVASWOM, ARANMULA GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, ARANMULA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. SRI.K.S.SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, SANTHI, SREE PARTHA SARADHI TEMPLE, ARANMULA, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, RESIDING AT CHALIYOT MADOM, PANDANADU P.O., CHENGANNOOR. ADV. MR. K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER FOR R1 - R3 ADV. MR.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.27897/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ROC NO.134/05 SANTHI T. 10.2.05 OF THE 2N RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1546 DT. 10.5.07 ISSUE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER ROC NO.134/05/SANTHI DT. 12.8.05 ISSUE BY THE 2N RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER ROC NO.2367/06/MIS. 1 DT. 5.4.06. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.2357/06 T. 19.1.07. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.1927 DT. 18.6.07 ISSUE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 24.4.08 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE ROC. NO.97/08/S.DT. 20.6.08 OF THE 2N RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE ORER ROC NO.1832/08/MIS. 1 DT. 28.6.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 2.7.08 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.19650/08 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P11:- COPY OF THE ROC. 1832/08/MIS.1 DT. 10.9.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.27897/2008-U ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Melsanti of Poozhikunnam Devaswom, Aranmula Group under the first respondent Board. The challenge made herein is in respect of the order passed by the Travancore Devaswom Board allowing the fourth respondent to continue as Melsanti of Sree Parthasarathy Temple Aranmula which is evidenced as Ext.P11. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Board while exercising the power of appeal has clearly gone wrong in allowing the appeal filed by the fourth respondent, since the facts considered were not germane to the issue and evidently wrong aspects have been applied in his favour for allowing the appeal. It is stated that the Board should have considered the guidelines in the matter and should have approached the question in the right perspective. 3. The whole facts leading to the dispute are the following:- The fourth respondent was working as Keezhsanti in Sree Parthasarathy Temple prior to his appointment as Melsanti and he had submitted an application for appointment of Melsanti therein. That application was rejected and he challenged the same in an appeal before the second respondent and W.P.(C) No.27897/2008 -:2:- approached this Court. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the appeal was directed to be considered in accordance with the norms. By Ext.P3, the same was dismissed. Again he filed an appeal before the Devaswom Board and pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).29212/2005, the appeal was disposed of as per Ext.P4. This was under challenge in W.P.(C).No.11694/2006. It was dismissed upholding the order passed by the Devaswom Board. By judgment in W.A.No.2357/2006, this Court directed the Devaswom Board to consider the case of the fourth respondent in the next general transfer. The fourth respondent was thereafter appointed as Melsanti as per Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is dated 18/06/2007. 4. For the year 2008-09 as per Ext.P7 order, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner transferred the fourth respondent to Budhanoor Devaswom and one Mohana Kumar was appointed and transferred to Aranmula Devaswom. The fourth respondent challenged that order in an appeal before the Devaswom Commissioner and his appeal was rejected by Ext.P8, and the Devaswom Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner to implement the order dated 03/06/2008, in favour of the petitioner. It was also found that Mohana Kumar was not an applicant for transfer to Aranmula. Again Ext.P8 order was challenged by the fourth respondent in an appeal before the Board and by Ext.P9, he was allowed to continue till his retirement since he was due to retire in the year 2009. The W.P.(C) No.27897/2008 -:3:- petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P.(C).No.19650/2008 and this Court directed the Board to take a fresh decision in the matter after hearing the parties, the copy of the judgment is produced as Ext-P10. After hearing the parties, the Board has passed Ext.P11 order. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon the norms produced as Ext.P1, especially, clause 17 which provides that the Melsantis of Devaswoms managed by the Administrative Officers should be transferred on the expiry of one year. It is stated that even though as per Clause 15 of the guidelines persons who have only two years to retire should not be transferred except on the basis of any complaint or request, it will be subject to the Special Provision contained under Clause 17. 6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Board. It is submitted that the fourth respondent has only seven months to retire, that is till 09/11/2009. It is pointed out that Clause 15 of the guidelines is applicable in the case of the fourth respondent who has only seven months to retire. 7. It is clear from the facts stated above that as far as the petitioner is concerned, he was benefited by the order dated 3/6/2008, passed by the Devaswom Commissioner whereby his appeal stands allowed. The facts do not show that the fourth respondent or anybody else have challenged that order before the Devaswom Board. Therefore, the order passed in appeal by W.P.(C) No.27897/2008 -:4:- the Devaswom Commissioner even survives as on today. But at the same time, as stated above, the fourth respondent is to retire from service on 09/11/2009. Therefore, the tenure that is available to him is only by about seven months from today. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. The fourth respondent will be allowed to continue till his retirement as Melsanti of Sree Parthasarathy Temple. On his retirement, the petitioner who is benefited by the order dated 03/06/2008, of the Devaswom Commissioner will be allowed to join as Melsanti there, at Sree Parthasarathy Temple. The writ petition is thus allowed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms