Kerala High Court
Jayasekharan Pillai vs Travancore Devaswom ... on 30 November, 2009
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7084 of 2009(E)
1. JAYASEKHARAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. R.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI,
3. K.GOPAKUMAR, S/O.P.N.KRISHNAN NAIR,
4. G.VIKRAMAN PILLAI, S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI
5. T.K.SATHIYAJITH, S/O.A.KALIDASANPILLAI,
6. R.AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.RAMA WARYAR,
7. S.MADHU, S/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI,
8. A.AJAYAKUMARAN UNNI, S/O.APPUKUTTAN UNNI
9. G.SREEPATHY, S/O.GOPALAN POTTY.V,SANTHI,
10. G.GOPAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI,
11. T.VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI
12. B.P.NIRMALANANDHAN,
13. THULASEEDHARAN NAIR, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR,
14. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI,
15. C.VASUDEVAN NAMBIAR,
16. D.AJITHA KUMAR, S/O.C.DAMODHARAN PILLAI,
17. C.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI,
18. N.RAMESAN, S/O.R.NEELAKANTAN NAIR,
19. S.REMADEVI, W/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR,
20. S.ANANDAKRISHNAN POTTY, SANTHI,
21. G.RAVIKUMAR, S/O.N.GOPALAN NAIR,
22. S.PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.V.SASIDHARAN PILLAI
23. EASWARAN POTTY, S/O.SAMBHU POTTY,SANTHI,
24. G.RAJENDRAN PILLAI,
25. R.UDAYAN, S/O.M.RAVEENDRAN, WATCHER,
26. J.REJI, S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI,
27. S.ANILKUMAR, S/O.N.SREEDHARAN PILLAI,
28. S.GANAPATHY POTTY, S/O.SANKARAN POTTY,
29. VIKRAMAN, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI,
Vs
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD-REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
3. GEETHAKUMARI, L.D.C.,
4. USHA RANI, L.D.AUDITOR,
5. THULASIDHARAN NAIR, L.D.C.,
6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
For Respondent :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/11/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) Nos.7084 of 2009 (E)
8698 of&2009 (F)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 30th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Prayer sought in these writ petitions is to direct the respondents to increase the percentage of vacancies earmarked to low paid temple employees from 22% to 50% or to such percentage as this Court deems fit in the matter of promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk / Sub Group Officer Gr.II.
2. When these cases came up for orders on 10/08/2009, having regard to the fact that it is a policy matter, this Court passed an interim order directing the Board to consider the claim made in these writ petitions. It is now reported by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Board that in pursuance to the said order, the Board considered the claim raised in these writ petitions and have resolved to increase the percentage from 22% to 35%, and that further action on that basis for gazette publication, is going on.
3. Evidently the fixation of percentage as sought for in WP(C) Nos.7084 & 8698/2009 -2- these writ petitions is a policy matter and unless the policy is vitiated by arbitrariness or malafides, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same.
Now that the Board itself has resolved to increase the percentage as stated above, I record the submission and close these writ petitions directing the Board to take further action in pursuance thereof.
These writ petitions are accordingly closed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg