Kerala High Court
K.Dinesan vs Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathi ...
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/24TH POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 16392 of 2014 (Y)
----------------------------
PETITIONERS:
---------------------
1. K.DINESAN, PULVARISOR OPERATOR,
SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
P.O. ANGADIPURAM 679 321, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
2. AJAYANARAYANAN, PLANT OPERATOR,
SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
P.O. ANGADIPURAM 679 321, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
3. AUNNIKRISHNAN, PLANT OPERATOR,
SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM
P.O. ANGADIPURAM 679 321, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN
SMT.P.RIJI
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE,
P.O. ANGADIPURAM 679 321, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
MALABAR DEVASWOM OFFICE, ERANHIPALAM - 673 019.
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
3. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED B Y SECRETARY
MALABAR DEVASWOM OFFICE, ERANHIPALAM - 673 019.
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
BY SRI.PARTHASARATHY.B, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2016,
ALONG WITH WPC. 16647/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 16392 of 2014 (Y)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.8.2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.08.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.21567/2009
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.01.2009 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.08.2013 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.06.2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P8: TRUE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 07.05.2015 BY
THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
JJJ
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647 of 2014
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners in both the writ petitions are persons who were appointed in the respondent Devaswom, being the Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathi Devaswom. The 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16647/2014 has already been granted approval. The other petitioners challenge the rejection of approval mainly on the contention that the Board could not have rejected such approval for reason of this Court having held in their favour in two separate judgments.
2. The 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16392/2014 was appointed as Pulverizer Operator and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners as Plant Operators in the respondent W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647/2014 -2- Devaswom. The same was necessitated since the Devaswom had purchased a Pulveriser, as had been sanctioned by the Board, evidenced by Ext.P1 produced in W.P.(C) No. 16392/2014 and also installed a waste water treatment plant, again with proper sanction.
3. The approval of appointment of the 1st petitioner, along with that of a sweeper, stood rejected by Ext.P2 dated 18.8.2009. But, however, there was pending a writ petition before a Division Bench, filed by the Trustee, wherein the approval was sought for the aforesaid appointments. Just two days after Ext.P2 order, Ext.P3 judgment was passed. A Division Bench of this Court found that the appointments made are to the lower category and was necessitated as explained in Ext.P12 produced in that writ petition. The Court also observed that it was a fit case for ratification and directed consideration which has now been done by W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647/2014 -3- Ext.P7 and rejected. Considering the specific observations in Ext.P3 the Board could not have rejected the approval, is the contention.
4. The petitioners 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) No.16392/2014 were appointed as Plant Operators to operate the waste water treatment plant installed by the Devaswom, again with proper sanction from the Board. It is also indicated from Ext.P6 that the Devaswom Board had also sanctioned two posts as per Ext.P4. A reading of Ext.P6 would indicate that an interview was conducted with a Government nominee and selection was made by proper procedure. The said issue was also the subject of a batch of writ petitions before the Devaswom Bench of this Court, in which there was a specific direction to approve the appointments made. The appointment of the 2nd W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647/2014 -4- petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16647/2014 also was in a like manner to the post of sweeper. The said judgment is reported in Bhanunni v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Dept.
- 2011 (4) KLT 230. Ext.P7, rejecting approval to the said appointment, would also amount to a contempt of the judgment passed by this Court.
5. It is to be noticed that the petitioners, who were the employees, were not parties in the above writ petitions. Their cause was agitated before this Court by the Trustee, on behalf of the Devaswom, since their continuance was required for reason of the Pulverizer having been purchased and the water treatment plant having been installed. The documents produced would indicate that both the said activities were sanctioned by the Board and considerable amounts were spend by the W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647/2014 -5- Devaswom for purchasing the Pulverizer and installing the plant. The purchase and installation would be rendered futile if there are not appointed sufficient persons to operate the same. In any event, going by the decisions of this Court in the very same subject matter; cited herein above, Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No. 16392/2014, which is Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.16647/2014, shall stand set aside insofar as it affects the petitioners herein.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent Devaswom Board, would, in fact, invite this Court to examine the reasons why the approval was not granted. The learned Counsel would say that the procedure of selection was not proper and that the appointments were not made in a transparent manner. However, there would be no necessity to go into such details, since, admittedly, the issue of the petitioners herein are covered by the earlier decisions of this Court. W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647/2014 -6- The writ petitions are allowed. The orders granting approval of the appointment of the petitioners herein shall be issued effective from the date of their appointment, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. No Costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 15/1/16