Disposed
C.v.Sankaran Namboothiri v. Cochin Devaswom Board
Kerala HCWP(C)/2373/2010
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931
WP(C).No. 2373 of 2010(V) -------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
C.V.SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.C.K.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHAVARKKAT ILLAM, VIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR-10.(SANTHI AT KUTTUMUKKU DEVASWOM KEZHADAM KARTHIYANI TEMPLE).
BY ADVS. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN
RESPONDENT(S):
BY ADV. SRI. K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) NO. 2373 OF 2010
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a Santhi under the Cochin Devaswom Board. Earlier, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 22.4.2009. Challenging Ext.P1 order, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20300 of 2009. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment with certain directions. Pursuant to Ext. P2, the first respondent passed Ext.P5 order directing to reinstate the petitioner at Achuthapooram Temple. On account of certain reasons, which according to the petitioner was beyond his control, but, which according to the respondents occasioned due to the reluctance on the part of the petitioner, he could not join duty in the temple where he was posted, as per Ext.P5. It is now submitted that on account of certain protests by the temple advisory committee, it will not be conducive to the smooth functioning of the temple to post the petitioner as Santhi in the said temple and, therefore, according to the respondents, they are proposing to give a fresh posting order to the petitioner, posting him
W.P.(C) NO. 2373/2010
2
to any temple other than Achuthapooram Temple and Maruthur Karthiyayani Temple, the place where he was working at the time when he was placed under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also not against such a consideration.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
sp/
W.P.(C) NO. 2373/2010
3
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) NO. 2373/2010
JUDGMENT
3rd February, 2010
W.P.(C) NO. 2373/2010 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the Cochin Devaswom Board to issue a fresh posting order for the petitioner away from the temple where disciplinary protests are pending?
Whether the delay in finalizing the petitioner's disciplinary proceedings requires judicial intervention?
C.V.SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court