Disposed

K.Madhavan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC5 Oct 2009WP(C)/1102/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to separately ascertain vacancies for L.D.Clerks and L.D.Typists under the 22% reservation rule. The court ruled that qualified low-paid employees eligible for Typist posts must be appointed according to seniority, regardless of whether seniors aspire for Clerk posts.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Board to ascertain vacancies for L.D.Typists separately and fill them from the common seniority list of eligible low-paid employees.

K.Madhavan Pillai Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 1102 of 2009(F)

¶6

-------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

---------------------

¶9

1. K.MADHAVAN PILLAI, WATCHER, THIRUVALLAM DEVASWOM BOARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(RESIDING AT KRISHNAVILASAM,T.C.6/998,PADAYANI ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-13).

¶10

2. V.S.ANILKUMAR,WATCHER,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM VELLAYANI GROUP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (RESIDING AT KODIVILAKATHU VEEDU, T.C.65/368, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27).

¶11

3. R.VIJAYAN, KAZHAKAM,THRIVIKRAMANGALAM DEVASWOM,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.(RESIDING AT MULLAVILAKATHU VEEDU, T.C.NO.18/1672,ANNOOR, THIRUMALA.PO. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).

¶12

*ADDL. P.4. IMPLEADED:

¶13

4. M.E. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, SANTHI, KOCHARAYAKULANGARA DEVASOM, MANIMANGALAM SUB GROUP, MAVELIKKARA GROUP, (RESIDING AT MAYARANEELAMANA ILLOM, CHENNITHALA, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA).

¶14

*ADDL.P.4. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 17/02/09 IN I.A. 2186/09.

¶15

BY ADVS. MR.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER, SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER.

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

------------------------

¶18

1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REP; BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS,NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

W.P.(C). NO.1102/2009-F:

¶20

2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

R1 & R2 BY MR.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR..P.GOPAL.S.C.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 2653 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

prv.

¶24

V.GIRI, J.

¶25

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009

¶26

= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 5^th day of October 2009.

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Common contentions arise for consideration in these writ petitions, which have been heard together and therefore they are being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to the contentions in Writ Petition No. 1102/2009 and wherever it is necessary, I will refer to the contentions in Writ Petition No. 2653/2009 as well.

¶29

Petitioners are employed as Watcher and Santhi in the Travancore Devaswom Board. They are low paid temple employees of the Board. They claimed a right to be considered for promotion as Lower Division Clerks / Sub Group Officers / Lower Division Typists, in the Board. Reference is made in this regard to the recruitment rules which currently provides that 22% of the vacancies in the post of L.D.Clerk/Sub Group Officer/L.D.Typist is available for temple employees and establishment employees. According to the petitioners, a common seniority list is drawn up amongst the temple employees and establishment employees, but the vacancies in the post of L.D.Typists are not separately identified. In other words, if the

¶30

¶31

W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009

¶32

seniority list, is operated, for the purpose of filling up 22% of vacancies, in the post of L.D.Clerk / Sub Group Officer and L.D.Typist taken together, then a very long time will be taken for the petitioners who are qualified for L.D.Typists, to be appointed in that regard.

¶33

It will be useful to highlight certain aspects highlighted in Writ Petition No. 2653/2009. The petitioner in the said Writ Petition is a 'Santhi', who is also qualified to be an L.D.Typist. He is included in the common seniority list of temple employees and establishment employees and otherwise eligible to be considered and appointed to the post of L.D.Typists. He is included in Serial No. 115 in Ext.P5 seniority list. According to him, persons who are junior to him in the said list have been appointed as L.D.Clerks / Sub Group Officers and this is illegal. He prays for a direction that Ext.P5 must be operated in such a manner that existing vacancies in the post of L.D.Typist must be filled up from among the said seniority list and this should be done by taking into account, the vacancies which have arisen during the period from 2002 onwards.

¶34

A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009

¶37

The manner in which 22% of the vacancies in the post of L.D.Clerk / Sub Group Officer and L.D.Typist are currently made available for eligible persons amongst the low paid temple employees and establishment employees have been traced.

¶38

By Ext.R2(a) notification dated 27.02.1991, 10% of the vacancies arising during each calender year in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks / Sub Group Officers Grade-II were to be filled up by transfer from eligible low paid employees. 10% was later increased to 18% as evidenced by Ext.P1 notification dated 28.04.2005. By the same notification, L.D.Typists were also brought within the purview of the notification providing for reservation of vacancies in favour of low paid temple employees and establishment employees.

¶39

The change brought about under Ext.P12 notification dated 10.10.2006, was to increase the percentage of vacancies to be made available for low paid employees of the Board, to 22% of the vacancies arising each calender year. Further a common seniority list as per the date of entry in service was to be prepared amongst the establishment employees and temple employees for the aforementioned purpose. It is contended that

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009

¶42

this procedure brought about by Ext.P12 dated 10.10.2006 is currently being followed.

¶43

It is also contended that several persons qualified for the post of L.D.Typist amongst the low paid employees of the Board were also eligible for the post of L.D.Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II. The post of L.D.Typist requires an additional technical qualification and the same is not interchangeable with L.D.Clerks or Sub Group Officers. It is affirmed that Ext.P5 is followed in filling up the vacancies.

¶44

Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.

¶45

I heard Mr.K.Karthikeya Panicker and Mr.Sreekanth S. Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for the Board.

¶46

The post of L.D.Clerk and L.D.Typist are not interchangeable. But, the posts are referred to commonly, in the notifications including Ext.P12. The Board should take steps to see that vacancies in the post of L.D.Clerk / Sub Group Officer Grade-II on one hand and the L.D.Typist on the other arising each year are ascertained separately. I take note of the stand of the Devaswom Board that hitherto the common seniority list

¶47

¶48

W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009

¶49

comprehending the establishment employees and the temple employees have been operated uniformly as regards the L.D.Clerks, Second Grade Sub Group Officers on one hand and L.D.Typists on the other. The list may be continued to be operated. But the ascertainment of vacancies in the two categories will have to be done separately and qualified among the low paid employees eligible to be considered for the post of L.D.Typists will have to be appointed in the order of seniority determined as per the rules in force. All vacancies which have arisen in the quota of 22% of the posts since the operation of Ext.P12 will naturally have to be filled up from the common seniority list prepared in that regard. If the turn of the petitioners who are said to be eligible and qualified for appointment as L.D.Tpists arises, the fact that the persons senior to them in Ext.P5 common seniority list, had aspired for promotion to the post of L.D.Clerk / Sub Group Officer Gr.II, should not stand in the way of the petitioners being considered for the post of L.D.Typist as and when vacancies arises. Obviously, this direction would be applicable to the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2653/2009 also.

¶50

¶51

W.P.(C). Nos. 1102 & 2653 OF 2009

¶52

The contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C).2653/09 that persons who are junior to him in the category of low paid employees have stolen a march over him is left open to be agitated, as and when cause of action arises. It is made clear that any claim for appointment to an available vacancy in the post of L.D.Typist, with reference to a date prior to the date on which the petitioners may be appointed, may be agitated with notice to the affected parties in other proceedings.

¶53

Subject to the above, writ petitions disposed of.

¶54

( V.GIRI ) JUDGE

¶55

kkms/

K.Madhavan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Madhavan Pillai v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trained Nursery Teachers Co-Op Society Vs Usha Titus

State of Kerala and Another Vs Trained Nursery Teachers Co-Op.Socy.Ltd.

K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Principal Accountant General (Audit)&Anr

Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner Vs M/S Mathruka Pracharanalayam Ltd. & Ors.

K.Piyoose Vs Addl.D.I.G.P.,C.R.P.F.& Others

S.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs the Commissioner of Land Revenue