Kerala High Court
T.V.Radhakrishnan vs Government Of Kerala on 25 February, 2020
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.22703 OF 2013(K)
PETITIONER:
T.V.RADHAKRISHNAN
S/O.KUNJIRAMAVARIER, THERTHELA VEEDU (KRISHNA
SADANAM), THRICHAMBARAM, KALAPARAMBU, KANNUR
DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)
RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (DEVASWOM)
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE PRESIDENT
MANAGING COMMITTEE, T.T.K.DEVASWOM, TALIPARAMBA,
KANNUR-670141.
3 EXECUTIVE OFFICER
T.T.K.DEVASWOM, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670141.
4 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSE FED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673006.
5 THE COMMISSIONER
HINDU REGLIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
(ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE-673611
6 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HINDU REGLIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
(ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE-673620
7 A.SANKARA NARAYANAN
VAZHIPADU CLERK, SREE KRISHNA TEMPLE, THRICHAMBARAM,
TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670141.
8 N.K.E.SANTHOSH KUMAR
VAZHIPADU CLERK, RAJA RAJESWARA TEMPLE, TALIPARAMBA,
KANNUR-670141.
WP(C).No.22703 OF 2013(K) 2
9 SURENDRAN
VAZHIPADU CLERK, VAIDYANADHA TEMPLE, KANHIRANGAD,
KANNUR-670142
R1 BY REKHA C.NAIR, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
R4 BY SRI.R. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN SC, MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD
ADV. SRI.N.SREEDHARAN
SRI.K.R.SUNIL, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.22703 OF 2013(K) 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of February 2020 The petitioner, who submitted an application for appointment as Vazhipadu clerk pursuant to a notification issued by the 3rd respondent, is aggrieved by the selection and appointment granted to respondents 7 to 9.
2. According to the petitioner, he was invited for interview scheduled to be held on 27.01.2007. The 2nd respondent had invited applications by issuing notification dated 24.12.2005 from among the candidates belonging to Hindu religion who passed SSLC and who have completed 25 years of age. It is stated that 130 applicants were invited for the interview; but the interview could not be conducted due to protest made by the Democratic Youth Friend of India, Kannur district committee. The petitioner points out that while he was waiting for the call letter, he came to know that respondents 7 to 9 were appointed on the basis of Ext.P3 decision in a meeting held on 24.06.2006. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 complaint before the WP(C).No.22703 OF 2013(K) 4 Deputy Commissioner pointing out that the appointments were made without conducting any interview of all the applicants. Ext.P4 complaint was rejected as per Ext.P5 order on the ground that it is not maintainable. However petitioner was permitted to move an appeal under Section 48(4) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 revision petition before the Commissioner. The 2nd respondent contested the same filing Ext.P7 counter statement. The trustee had decided to regularise the persons who were working in the temple as there were persons having previous experience in the posts. Pointing out that the appointments were already made in 2006, they have stated that the appointments are not liable to be cancelled till the implementation of Ext.P8 order rejecting the revision petition accepting the contentions of the 2nd respondent. It was stated that respondents 3 to 5 were given due weightage and they were found to have the skill and efficiency in their work as temple employees as well as permanent employees. The petitioner thereupon approached the Government with Ext.P9 revision WP(C).No.22703 OF 2013(K) 5 petition which was also rejected as per Ext.P10 order stating that the Managing committee comprising of seven persons had taken a decision in accordance with the scheme to appoint 3 persons who were working from 01.10.2000, 16.05.2003 and 01.03.2005 respectively. The writ petition is filed challenging these orders rejecting the complaint and revision petition submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that the 2nd respondent adopted an unfair procedure after inviting applications and initially resorting to a process of interview. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not conducted the process of selection on the basis of merit and if it was conducted fairly, he would have been selected and appointed.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the appointments were made in accordance with the provisions contained in Ext.R2(a) scheme. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent, who is the appointing authority, has no right to make the appointments. It is further stated that on the basis of advertisements issued by the 2nd respondent 150 applications were received. From among them, 131 WP(C).No.22703 OF 2013(K) 6 candidates were invited for interview. But the 2 nd respondent could not conduct the interview on account of unforeseen reasons and therefore, the 2nd respondent scrutinised the applications on the basis of available details. It is stated that respondents 3 to 9 were having all the qualifications in addition to previous experience. The respondents also stated that the petitioner does not have any right to insist on any process to be followed for the selection.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the trustees as well as the learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.C.No.4450/2005 pointed out that the Malabar Devaswom Board has issued a circular explaining the procedure for selection and appointments in the temples and that appointments have to be made in accordance with that circular, it is seen that in the judgment in Zamorin Raja v. Government of Kerala [2016(4) KLT 841] a Division Bench of this Court after interpreting the provisions contained in Section 48 of the Hindu Religious and WP(C).No.22703 OF 2013(K) 7 Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, set aside the provisions contained in the circular except those relating to the requirement to notify vacancies in a newspaper and that consultation has to be made with the Thanthri. Hence it was held that the trustee is having the authority to make appointments without referring to the procedure prescribed in the circular.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that prime consideration in the process of selection should be fairness. But it is seen that the 2nd respondent has made the appointment in accordance with the scheme. Going by the judgment of the Division Bench there is no scope for interfering with such a selection.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that, the 2nd respondent appointed the respondents 7 to 9 in exercise of the power vested in him under the Scheme and that the circulars which were set aside by this Court were not in existence at the time when applications were invited and therefore there were no instructions as to the procedure to be followed while conducting selection. WP(C).No.22703 OF 2013(K) 8
7. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, these circulars which were set aside by this court were issued only in 2014. Therefore when the applications were invited or appointments were made there was no prescription as to the procedure to be followed. At any rate after the judgment of the Division Bench the authority of the trustees to make appointment cannot be interfered with. It is seen that the appointments were made by the appointing authority in accordance with the Scheme. Therefore petitioner cannot have any right to insist the manner in which selection is to be made.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE DM WP(C).No.22703 OF 2013(K) 9 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER H.R.NO.J5-3700/2004 KDIS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2005.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT NO.J8-7347/2010/MDB DT.15.10.2010.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF 2ND RESPONDENT APPOINTING RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9, DATED 14.8.2006.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3/1148/2006 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DT.22/11/2006. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS OF RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN R.P.NO.4/2007, DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS OF RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9 IN R.P.NO.4/2007 DATED 23.9.2010.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN R.P.NO.4/2007 DATED 2/11/2011.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS G.O.(RT) NO.6919/2012/RD, DATED 05/12/2012.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2 A A TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME.
EXHIBIT R2 B A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST AND DETAILS OF THE CANDIDATES TO WHOM INTERVIEW CARD WAS SENT.
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE