IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8867 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJINA.P., D/O.LATE SRI.K.M.SANKUNNY MARAR, AGED 36 YEARS, MATHOTH HOUSE, P.O.AARATTUTHARA, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD-670 645. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, HOUSE FED COMPLEX, ERANJIPALAM POST, KOZHIKODE. 2. SRI VALLIYOORKAVU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, P.O.ARATTUTHARA, MANANTHAVADY-670 645, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. SRI P.T.KUNJIRAMAN NAIR, CLERK, SRI VALLIYOORKAVU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, P.O.ARATTUTHARA, MANANTHAVADY-670 645, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. SMT.P.SAJITHA, D/O.LATE SRI.K.M.SANKUNNY MARAR, "KOUSTHABHAM", P.O.ARATTUTHARA, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD-670 645. ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 8867 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the 4th respondent are the daughters of one Sankunny Marar who died in harness on 14.3.2008. After obtaining Exts.P1(a) and P1(b) No Objection Certificates respectively from her mother and sister, the 4th respondent, the petitioner submitted an application for appointment under the dying in harness scheme. Subsequently, the 4th respondent filed an objection before the first respondent raising an objection against the consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment under the dying in harness scheme and also claiming the said appointment. In fact, prior to the receipt of such an objection from the 4th respondent, first respondent has taken a decision to give appointment to the petitioner. However, on receipt of the objection from the 4th respondent the implementation of the said decision was kept in abeyance as is evident from Ext.P3. It is mainly challenging Ext.P8, this writ petition has been filed. 2. In view of the nature of the dispute involved in this case the issue requires expedient consideration by the first WPC.8867 of 2010 : 2 : respondent. The petitioner raised yet another claim relating appointment against the post of Clerk under the first respondent. According to her, the first respondent is not implementing the order solely on account of the rival claim put forth by the 4th respondent who is her elder sister. 3. Considering the totality of the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to finalise the proceedings initiated for giving appointment to one of the legal heirs of Sri. Sankunni Marar after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The petitioner has also staked claim for appointment against the post of clerk. If the entitlement of the petitioner for such an appointment is taken up for consideration, necessarily the same shall be finalised only after issuing notice to the 3rd respondent. The first respondent shall finalise such proceedings in terms of the aforesaid observations expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge