IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 68 of 2008(G) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.V.SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI SANTHI,THOTTACKATU DEVASWOM, PAKKIL SUB GROUP, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JAGADISH KUMAR,SANTI THALIYIL DEVASWOM, PARAPAD SUB GROUP KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMOSSIONER KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 68 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Santhi in the Travancore Devaswom Board. While working as Santhi in Thaliyil Devaswom in Parapad Sub Group, coming to know that a vacancy will arise in the Thottackattu Devaswom, he applied for a transfer. The 3rd respondent was then working in the Thottackattu Devaswom. According to the petitioner, there were complaints against Devaswom employees then stationed in the Thottackattu Devaswom including the 3rd respondent. By Exhibit P1 order, the petitioner was transferred to Thottackattu Devaswom and the 3rd respondent was transferred to Thaliyil Devaswom. Exhibit P1 is an order passed by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, stated to be an order of transfer. Subsequently on 29.12.2007, Exhibit P2 communication has been issued by the Devaswom Commissioner to Assistant Devaswom Commissioner purporting to cancel Exhibit P1. Petitioner challenges Exhibit P2. W.P ( C) No. 68 of 2008 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if a transfer of an employee is effected on a complaint raised against him then he cannot be given a posting in the same station. It is further contended that if the 3rd respondent had any grievance against Exhibit P1, he had a remedy by way of an appeal before the Board. The Commissioner has no power to review . 3. Learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board submits that petitioner has an efficacious remedy if he is aggrieved by Exhibit P2, by way of an appeal before the Board, and he is at liberty to avail the same. Submission is recorded. 3. Taking note of the fact that petitioner was transferred to Thottackattu Devaswom only on 7.12.2007 and on a prima facie view , the Commissioner may not have powers of review and further noting that petitioner was not heard before the Commissioner took a decision to cancel Exhibit P1, I am of the view that petitioner must be given an opportunity to efficaciously pursue his alternate remedy. Learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board further submits that petitioner is continuing in Thottackattu Devaswom as on date. This submission is also recorded. W.P ( C) No. 68 of 2008 3 4. In the light of the above, since I propose to relegate the petitioner to an alternate remedy, I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the 3rd respondent. In the result, I dispose of this writ petition permitting the petitioner to file an appeal against Exhibit P2. If it is so done, within two weeks from today, the 1st respondent Board shall after notice to the petitioner and 3rd respondent, take a decision thereon, within four weeks thereafter. Till orders are passed by the Board, status quo prevalent as on date shall be maintained. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions of the petitioner or the Board. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 68 of 2008 4 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 68 of 2008 5 W.P ( C) No. of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd January, 2008 J U D G M E N T (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 68 of 2008 6 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007 25th May, 2007