IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 15378 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.P.SHEEJA, WIFE OF VINOD.V.C., AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNIYIL HOUSE, POST PANTHAKKAL, MOOLAKKADAVU, MAHE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE RAMASWAMY TEMPLE, THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT.JAYASREE, W/O.LATE SIVARAMAKRISHNA MOOSAD, `RAIL VIEW', THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGING TRUSTEE, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SREE RAMASWAMY TEMPLE, THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEVASAM SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR R1 SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. FOR R1 SRI.R.SURENDRAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO.15378 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Vazhipadu Clerk in the Thalassery Sree Ramaswamy Temple. The second respondent's husband was employed in the same capacity and while so, he died in harness. The second respondent was then appointed as daily wage basis as evidenced by Ext.P1. She resigned from her temporary appointment. By Ext.P3 resolution of the Board of Trustees dated 6.10.1998 her resignation was decided to be accepted. The petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as evidenced by Ext.P4 order dated 9.10.1998. She was then appointed in the scale of Rs.900-20-1100-25-1300-30-1450 as evidenced by Ext.P5. That also shows that the appointment was provisional. The petitioner continued in service. In the meanwhile pursuant to a communication issued by the Commissioner, the second respondent was appointed as L.D.Clerk with effect from 16.5.2001 on a permanent basis on the strength of the fact that she was appointed under the dying WPC.15378 /2008 2 in harness scheme. This is evidenced by Exts.P8 and P10. While so, a vacancy of U.D.Clerk arose in the temple and the second respondent was appointed in the said vacancy. This was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner. But the same was rejected as evidenced by Ext.P12 order. It has been affirmed by the Government in exercise of it's revisional powers as evidenced by Ext.P15 order. Ext.P15 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Counter affidavits have been filed by the second respondent as also by the Executive officer, the first respondent. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Sathyanatha Menon, Sri. K.V.Sohan, Sri.R.Surendran, learned counsel for the contesting responents and the learned senior Government Pleader Sri. Nandakumar. 3. What is to be noted in the outset is that the second respondent had a claim to be appointed under the compassionate appointment scheme and even originally she ought to have been appointed against a permanent vacancy. It is not known why she was originally appointed on a provisional basis. It seems that there was a ban on appointment at that point of time. I do not WPC.15378 /2008 3 think that the ban would have comprehended appointment under the dying in harness scheme. Be that as it may, the second respondent was appointed originally on a provisional basis. She resigned and she was later appointed as evidenced by Ext.P10 on a permanent basis. It seems that in the meanwhile the petitioner was appointed on a provisional basis and the petitioner continued in the said post. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner was appointed against a regular vacancy or on a permanent basis at any point of time. But it is a fact that the petitioner has continued in service without any break as such and therefore to that extent it might be open to the petitioner to say that she is continuing in service on a regular basis. But it will be difficult for the petitioner to claim seniority over the second respondent in as much as there is no material to show that the petitioner was appointed on a permanent basis as Vazhipad Clerk prior to the date on which the second respondent is appointed on a permanent basis. Therefore even without going into the question as to whether the petitioner was absorbed into regular service at any point of time, it is atleast necessary to state that the petitioner cannot claim any seniority WPC.15378 /2008 4 over the second respondent. I find it difficult to accept the contra version suggested by the Commissioner in Ext.P19 produced along with IA.No.9406/2008. In the circumstances the action taken by the Board of Trustees in appointing the second respondent as U.D.clerk is regular and proper and the affirmation of the same by the Government as per Ext.P15 order does not warrant any interference by this court. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in this writ petition. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. At the same time in the facts and circumstances of the case the Trustee Board shall pass orders as regards the regular absorption of the petitioner into service but without prejudice to the right of the second respondent in that regard. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC.15378 /2008 5 WPC.15378 /2008 6