IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1934 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, MAVELI ILLOM, KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM. (MELSANTHI, VARAVILA DEVASWOM BHARANIKKAVU) BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNAGAPPALLY GROUP, KOLLAM. 4. A.V.SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIR, MAHALAKSHMY DEVASWOM, OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).1934/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner who was a Melsanthi under the Travancore Devaswom Board is currently serving in Varavila Devaswom At Bharanikkavu. According to him, he had opted for a posting in Oachira Mahalakshmy Temple or in Oachira Sastha Temple. But overlooking his claim, fourth respondent, who was earlier posted in the Oachira Mahalakshmy Temple, was again given a posting there. Petitioner contends that this is overlooking the fact that the fourth respondent had earlier suffered a punishment. Reference to Ext.P3 order passed by the Board considering the claim of the petitioner will show that the petitioner was not given a posting in Oachira taking note of the fact that he had earlier served in the Oachira Sastha Temple. But apparently there is no reference to the fact that the fourth respondent had also served in one of the Temples in Oachira. W.P.(C).1934/2008 2 Petitioner cannot obviously insist that he be posted in a particular Temple nor is there any enforceable legal right to impugn a transfer of another employee. I do not therefore, find any grounds to interfere with Exts.P3 and P4 as such. But nevertheless there are certain aspects highlighted by the petitioner in Ext.P5 which will justify a serious consideration of the same by the Board. This includes the petitioner's contention that fourth respondent had earlier worked in a Temple in Oachira but has been again given a posting there. At the same time, petitioner is denied such a posting. Petitioner's contention that he is the senior most Melsanthi due to retire in the year 2010, may also be taken into consideration. In the result, writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the W.P.(C).1934/2008 3 second respondent indicating the place of posting which he desires. If such representation is filed within three weeks from today, same shall be considered by the second respondent in the course of the general transfer to be effected in 2008 and in so considering the petitioner's request, second respondent shall not be bound by Exts.P3 or P4 orders. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs