Disposed

M.K.Sajeevan v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Represented by Its Administrator

Kerala HC12 Dec 2012WP(C)/21890/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of an arrangement allowing a permanent Mahout to work as a Driver. Instead of adjudicating merits, the Court directed the respondent Devaswom to consider a petitioner application pending hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Devaswom to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's pending application after giving an opportunity of hearing within two months.

M.K.Sajeevan Vs Guruvayoor Devaswom Represented by Its… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/21ST AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 21890 of 2012 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.K.SAJEEVAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.KUNJAN, 'RAJ BHAVAN', THIUVANKIDAM GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM OFFICE,

¶11

GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680101

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.

¶13

2. THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

¶14

GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM OFFICE, GURUVAYOOR THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680101.

¶15

3. THE ADMINISTRATOR,

¶16

GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM OFFICE, GURUVAYOOR

¶17

THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680101.

¶18

R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 21890 of 2012 (I)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28/3/2008 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 25/3/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/9/2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19/9/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

Scl.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶29

W.P.(C). No. 21890 of 2012

¶30

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner who was originally appointed as a 'Mahout' under the respondent Devaswom came to be shifted as a 'Driver' on 'work arrangement', which however was put an end to as per Ext.P3 dated 18.9.2012, which is sought to be intercepted in this writ petition.

¶33

The respondent Devaswom has filed a detailed counter affidavit referring to the sequence of events and the relevant facts and figures. Paragraphs '5' and '6' of the said affidavit are relevant, which are extracted below:

¶34

“5. The petitioner was appointed as Mahout in the service of the Devaswom on regular basis by order dated 23.2.2003. He joined duty on 23.02.2003. The Devaswom is having 63 elephants. All the elephants of

¶35

the Devaswom are maintained at Punathurkotta. The elephants are to be looked after by the Mahouts. The total number of sanctioned post of Mahouts in the Devaswom is 190. At present there are only

¶36

W.P.C. No. 21890 of 2012

¶37

-2-

¶38

126 permanent Mahouts working in the Devaswom. Two Mahouts are placed under suspension pending disciplinary action and one Mahout is on leave. The petitioner is one of the permanent Mahout in the service of the Devaswom. 67 vacancies of Mahouts are lying vacant. Out of 67 vacancies of Mahouts, 35 vacancies are at present filled up by engaging temporary hands. On account of the dearth of Mahouts, the Devaswom decided to conduct selection for filling up the vacancies of Mahouts on temporary basis by publishing notification in the newspapers. After conducting selection, a select list has been prepared by the Devaswom. 23 persons from the select list were appointed on temporary basis. The Devaswom has taken steps for engaging eight persons included in the wait list also in the available vacancies for engaging them on temporary basis. The Devaswom require the service of the petitioner in the post of Mahout in exigencies of service and hence the working arrangement has been cancelled for posting the petitioner in his permanent post.

¶39

A Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court initiated suo moto proceedings based on the report published in the news paper with regard to the inaction on the part of the

¶40

W.P.C. No. 21890 of 2012

¶41

-3-

¶42

Devaswom in not maintaining the elephants in the Punathurkotta in a proper manner and numbered the case as DBP 125 of 2012. Later on based on the report published in the newspaper due to the accumulation of waste in the Punathurkotta causing threat to the elephants, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court initiated suo moto proceedings and numbered the same as I.A.No.12081 of 2012 and by order dated 5.9.2012 directed the Guruvayur Devaswom to take remedial steps for proper maintenance of the elephants in the Punathurkotta. In order to look after the affairs of the elephants in a proper manner in the Punathurkotta, service of three Mahouts are required for each elephants. It is under these circumstances the Devaswom has restored to fill up the vacancies of Mahouts on temporary basis and decided to cancel the order permitting the petitioner to work as Driver on working arrangement basis.”

¶43

The various instances pointed out by the petitioner as to

¶44

the engagement of other similarly situated persons as 'Drivers' under the Devaswom, have been sought to be explained by the Devaswom in their counter affidavit; particularly, in paragraphs 9 to 14. It is further stated in paragraph '17' that the post of

¶45

W.P.C. No. 21890 of 2012 -4-

¶46

'Mahout' in which the petitioner was given appointment is a 'Class IV post', whereas the post of 'Driver' is a 'Class III' post. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, producing some additional documents, in response to which, the Devaswom has filed an additional counter affidavit as well, producing some more documents as Annexure R1(a) to R1(g).

¶47

During the course of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the earlier version of the respondent Devaswom that, Ext.P4 representation was not received and the same pertains to somebody else is not correct, as they have now conceded in the additional counter affidavit dated 5.11.2012, that the same has been received and a copy of the same has been produced as Ext.R1(f). The learned counsel further submits that, there is absolutely no merit in the doubt expressed as to the validity or genuineness of the driving licence possessed by the petitioner with respect to the date of birth given in the relevant records, which does not have any relevance at all

¶48

as there was some mistake in entering the date of birth in the records. The learned counsel also submits that, it is always open

¶49

W.P.C. No. 21890 of 2012 -5-

¶50

for the respondent Board to ascertain the genuineness of the driving licence from the concerned authorities of the Motor Vehicles Department. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the respondent Devaswom to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.R1(f) application preferred by the petitioner, in view of the particular facts and circumstances.

¶51

Considering the limited nature of relief sought for, this

¶52

Court does not find it necessary to adjudicate the issue on merits. The writ petition is disposed of, directing Devaswom to pass appropriate orders on Ext.R1(f) in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶54

Kp/-

M.K.Sajeevan v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Represented by Its Administrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Sajeevan v. Guruvayoor Devaswom Represented by Its Administrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Subramaniam Potti Vs Devaswom Board Commissioner

K.I.Xavier Vs Kerala Khadi & Village Industries Board

Binitha Chandran Vs Kreala Public Service Commission

Abdul Fathah Vs State of Kerala

Nijil Dimlee P. Vs the Director of Public Instruction

The Manager Vs the University of Kerala