IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4548 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.MADHAVAN NAMPOOTHIRY, S/O.M.NARAYANAN NAMPOOTHIRY, KUNNATH MADOM, KEZHPEROOR, PEROOR (PO),KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT CHENNATT HOUSE, NELLUVAI(PO),ERUMAPATTY, THRISSUR. (SANTHI, KEEZHADOM AIRANI URAG TEMPLE). BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD-REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR,. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVILWAMALA DEVASWOM, THRISSUR. 3. SRI.,SANKARA NARAYANAN, JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER, MULLACKAL, NELLUVAI (PO) ERUMAPATTY, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 4548 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Santhi under the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per Ext.P1 order dated 10.9.2009, he was posted as Keezhsanthi at Ernakulam Siva Temple. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per Ext.P9 order, his posting at Ernakulam Siva Temple was cancelled on the allegation that there was delay on his part in reporting about the receipt of a golden diadem oblated by a devotee. The specific contention of the petitioner is that the golden crown was offered by the devotee only on 5.7.2009 and since the third respondent was on leave on the said date and also on the following date, he could hand over the golden crown only on 7.7.2009. It is also specifically contended by him that he had not taken out the said golden crown from the temple during those days and that as soon as the third respondent joined duty after leave, the same was handed over to him. According to the petitioner, cancellation of Ext.P1 order would cast a stigma on him and that it was without hearing him that Ext.P9 order was passed. W.P.(C)NO. 4548/2010 2 2. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated therein that earlier as per Ext.P3 order dated 15.8.2009, the petitioner was transferred to Airani Urag Temple pursuant to which he joined there. It was thereafter that the petitioner was transferred to Ernakulam Siva Temple as per Ext.P1 order. After the issuance of Ext.P1 order, the third respondent submitted Ext.R3(a) report to the first respondent pointing out the difficulties or inconveniences that might arise in case the petitioner is relieved from Airani Urag Temple and subsequently Ext.P9 order was passed. 3. It is relevant to note in this context that the authorities who passed Ext.P9 order cancelling Ext.P1 order did not file any counter affidavit in this Writ Petition, refuting the contentions of the petitioner. Therefore, the circumstances that led to the cancellation of Ext.P1 order and passing of Ext.P9 order are not forthcoming. However, in view of the admitted fact that the golden crown was received by the petitioner only on 5.7.2009 and on 7.7.2009 it was entrusted with the third respondent, I am of the view that the first respondent has to consider the matter afresh. It is submitted by the petitioner that he has also opted for a transfer to Pazhur Devaswom. In case it is necessary to cancel Ext.P1 order, the respondents W.P.(C)NO. 4548/2010 3 may consider whether the petitioner can be given a posting at Pazhur Devaswom, it is submitted. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner to restore Ext.P1 order and in case such a request cannot be granted, to consider his request for a posting at Pazhur Devasom. To enable the first respondent to consider the said request, Ext.P9 order is quashed. Orders shall be passed by the first respondent, as directed, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C)NO. 4548/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO.4548/2010 JUDGMENT 11th March, 2010