The Managing Trustee, Thiruvangad Sreerama Swamy Temple v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Jan 2012WP(C)/981/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trustee sought to quash orders stopping recruitment of clerks. Petitioner argued vacancies were sanctioned. Court allowed process to proceed pending government decision on complaints but subject to lawful orders. No sanction granted for peon post. Petitioner to follow circular procedures.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to proceed with selection in accordance with law pending decision on complaints by first respondent.

The Managing Trustee, Thiruvangad Sreerama Swamy… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶6

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/10TH MAGHA 1933

¶7

WPC.No. 981 of 2012 (W)

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

THE MANAGING TRUSTEE, THIRUVANGAD SREERAMA SWAMY TEMPLE THIRUVANGAD POST, 670 103 THALASSERY KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.NISHIL.P.S.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL

¶13

CHIEF SECRETARY(REVENUE) DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT

¶14

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶15

THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT

¶17

HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM P.O,

¶18

KOZHIKODE 673 006.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,

¶20

HOUSEFED COMPLEX ERANHIPALAM P.O,

¶21

KOZHIKODE 673 006.

¶22

R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.S.MANILAL R2 & R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WPC NO.981/2012:

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.P1.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J6-3863/2011/MDB (KDIS) DATED 18.7.2011 OF THE DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶27

EXT.P2.TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.J8-7347/2010/MDB DATED 15.10.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶28

EXT.P3.TURE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.J6-5373/11/MDB DATED 6.8.2011 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P4.TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.9.2011 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.24994 OF 2011 OF THIS COURT.

¶30

EXT.P5.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J6-7705/2010/MDB DATED 16.11.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.P6.TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.44293/DEV1-2011 /RD DATED 22.08.2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶32

K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No.981 of 2012-W

¶35

Dated, this the 30^th day of January, 2012

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

K.M.Joseph, J.

¶38

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P5 and P6 and for an interim direction to proceed with the recruitment of 2 Lower Division Clerks as permitted under Ext.P1.

¶39

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is the Managing Trustee of a Temple. As per Section 48 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, vacancies whether permanent or temporary is to be filled up by the Trustee. It is stated that on retirement two posts of Lower Division Clerks and on promotion one post of Peon fell vacant. The second respondent Devaswom Board, by Ext.P1 granted sanction for appointment of two Lower Division Clerks. The request for sanction to appoint Peon in the promotion vacancy is not sanctioned. Ext.P2 purports to be the elaborate procedure laid down for the selection. Petitioner initiated steps. Thereupon, by Ext.P3 the 3^rd respondent issued a communication stating that further proceedings for the selection shall be kept in abeyance until further orders. Petitioner filed W.P.(C) 24994/2011

¶40

WPC 981/2012 -2-

¶41

challenging Ext.P3. The said petition came to be disposed of by Ext.P4 directing the 3^rd respondent to communicate his objections against the petitioner proceeding with the selection. Thereafter, petitioner was heard by the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent finally issued Ext.P5. The order issued by the State of Kerala was also furnished.

¶42

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior Government Pleader as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, vacancies which are sanctioned are about to be filled up. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P6 is without any reason or logic. It is the further case of the petitioner that neither the Government nor the 3^rd respondent never communicated any complaint against the proposed selection said to be received. It is the further case of the petitioner that detailed procedure laid down in Ext.P2 Circular are to be followed with publication of the vacancies. It is also the case of the petitioner that no sanction is granted to fill up vacancy of Peon.

¶43

Learned Government Pleader would submit that some complaints were received and the Government are vested with power under Section 99 of the Act and the Government is processing the complaint. He would submit that a decision will be taken on the complaint within three weeks from today. He is

¶44

WPC 981/2012 -3-

¶45

unable to substantiate before us any justification for stalling further proceedings as on today. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the clause in Ext.P2 against relatives being appointed have been modified. In such circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition as follows:

¶46

The first respondent is free to take a decision on the complaint alleged to have been received. We record the submission of the learned Government Pleader that a decision will be taken on the complaint within three weeks from today. We further make it clear that, in the mean time, it will be open to the petitioner to proceed with the selection process in accordance with law. Needless to say, further proceedings will be subject to any lawful orders that may be passed by the first respondent.

¶47

(K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE.

¶48

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE.

¶49

The Managing Trustee, Thiruvangad Sreerama Swamy Temple v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Trustee, Thiruvangad Sreerama Swamy Temple v. the State of Kerala

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

Omana Vs State of Kerala & 3 Others

Anil Kumar K. Vs Vanitha

Vijayalekshmi R.V Vs Manoj U.V

Manikkoth Aboobacker Vs Meethale Puthalath Naseema

Shafeek and Others Vs Hameena

T.Rajini Vs K.Purushothaman