Kerala High Court
B.Sree Kumar vs Travancore Devaswom Board
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2013/31ST VAISAKHA 1935
WP(C).No. 12461 of 2013 (G)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
B.SREE KUMAR, AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.G.BHASKARAN PILLAI, "THAVIL TEACHER"
KSHETHRA KALA PEEDAM, ATTINGAL
RESIDING AT "MOOTHANADU THATHAMPALLIL VEEDU"
KAVALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 506.
BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY THE DEVASOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.
2. THE CULTURAL DIRECTOR,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.
3. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASOM BOARD, THIRUVALLA GROUP
THIRUVALLA - 695 141.
4. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER,
PALIYAKARA DEVASOM, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.
R BY SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 12461 of 2013 (G) 2
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTICATE ISSUED BY THE KSHETHRA KALA
PEEDAM DURING THE YEAR 1999.
EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 15/10/99 ISSUED BY THE
ALL INDIA RADIO.
EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 02/06/09 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT BOARD.
EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16/07/09 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 11/11/2011 ISSUED BY
THE ALL INDIA RADIO.
EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 11/5/12 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT BOARD.
EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/7/12 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
True Copy /
P.A to Judge
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
=========================
W.P(C).No.12461 of 2013
============================
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Respondents appear through Standing Counsel.
2. It is submitted that petitioner was appointed as Thavil Lavanam under the first respondent on 21.04.2000 and later, he was appointed as Thavil teacher in a permanent vacancy on 02.06.2009 at the Kshethra Kalapeedam, Attingal. Now, overlooking claim of the petitioner, respondents are attempting to appoint retired hands to the post of Thavil teacher. Petitioner has preferred Exts.P4 and P7, representations dated 16.07.2009 and 12.07.2012 before the first respondent requesting to accommodate petitioner as Thavil teacher. Those representations are not so far disposed of. Hence it is prayed that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint petitioner in the permanent post of Thavil teacher and issue similar direction to the second respondent to dispose of Ext.P7, representation in accordance with law.
3. The learned counsel submits from Ext.P1 that petitioner is qualified to be a Thavil teacher and that attempt of the respondents in appointing retired hands is to avoid petitioner being W.P(C).No.12461 of 2013 2 appointed as Thavil teacher. It is also submitted that petitioner is likely to be relieved from duty on 22.05.2013. In the circumstance petitioner prayed for a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7, representation and in the meantime, direct that petitioner be not relieved from duty.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents submits that petitioner was appointed as Thavil Lavanam which is not a feeder category for promotion and appointment as Thavil teacher and hence petitioner cannot as of right claim any promotion to the post of Thavil teacher. It is also submitted that there is a proposal with the first respondent to engage retired hands as Thavil teachers. According to the learned counsel, petitioner was only deputed on duty as Thavil teacher and that also will not give any vested right for the petitioner for appointment by promotion to the post of Thavil teacher. Learned counsel submits that petitioner can apply for the post of Thavil teacher if the petitioner possesses required qualification in accordance with the notification issued by the first respondent.
5. Having regard to the above submission I am inclined to think that no interim order as prayed for by the petitioner could be granted. For, it is pointed out that the post of Thavil Lavanam is not W.P(C).No.12461 of 2013 3 the feeder category for appointment of Thavil teacher by promotion.
6. But, Ext.P7, representation if received by the second respondent has to be disposed of by that authority as early as possible having regard to the grievance of the petitioner.
In the circumstance, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following direction:
(i) The second respondent, if in receipt of Ext.P7, representation is directed to dispose of the same within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after hearing the petitioner and after notice to all the parties concerned,
(ii) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent as early as possible.
Sd/-
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna