Dismissed

N.Reghunath v. the Tdb

Kerala HC9 Oct 2013WP(C)/13831/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order transferring him from Sopana Sangeetham at Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom to Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom. He argued it was a non-existent post. The Court held Sopana Sangeetham is a sub-syllabus of Panchavadyam, observed the petitioner taught both, and allowed the transfer based on identical syllabi at both locations.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the transfer order was allowed to take effect.

N.Reghunath Vs the Tdb — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/17TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 13831 of 2013 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

N.REGHUNATH, TEACHER, SOPANA SANGEETHAM, KSHETHRA KALA PEEDHOM ACCADEMY, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686 141.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

¶9

SMT.SABINA JAYAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDINGS, NANTHANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-595 001.

¶12

THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVNACORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDINGS NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-595 001.

¶13

THE CULTURAL DIRECTOR TRAVNACORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDINGS NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

ADDL. 4. PADMAKUMAR, PANCHAVADYAM TEACHER, KSHETHRAKALA PEEDOM, VAIKOM.

¶15

“ 5. PRAKASH, PANCHAVADYAM TEACHER, KSHETHRA KALA PEEDOM, VAIKOM.

¶16

(ADDL.R4 & R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.7365 OF 2013 DATED 7.6.2013)

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM

¶18

BOARD

¶19

RADDL.R-R4 & 5 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR RADDL.R-R4 & 5 BY ADV. SRI.G.BIJU

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 13831 of 2013 (D)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT P1.TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DEVASWOM BOARD DIARY OF 2010.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2.TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17/1/2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE AIR TRIVANDRUM.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3.TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTED 9/5/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶28

EXHIBIT P5.TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 14/5/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶29

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R.O.CNO.212/97/C.A. DATED 20.6.1997 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R.O.C.NO.5784/96/C.M. DATED 7.6.1997 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31.5.2013 FROM THE ASST. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER VARKALA TO THE ASST.DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, VAIKOM.

¶32

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NON OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 8.11.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.6.2001 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY DR.N.R.ELEDOM DIRECTOR KSHETHRA KALAPEEDHOM TDB VAIKOM.

¶34

EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.10.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY SADANAM DIVAKARAN RETD. PRINCIPAL KSHETHRA KALAPEEDHOM VAIKOM.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶36

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF SYLLABUS OF THE COURSE OF STUDY IN PANCHAVADYAM.

¶37

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF TIME TABLE OF PANCHAVADYAM.

¶38

EXT.R5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM ALL INDIA RADIO DATED 7.2.2000.

¶39

EXT.R5(b): TRUE COPY OF THE JUNIOR FELLOWSHIP AWARDED BY THE CULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 5.4.2000.

¶40

WP(C).No. 13831 of 2013 (D)

¶41

EXT.R5(c): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF KERALA SANGEETHA NATAKA ACADEMY, SRI.KAVALAM NARAYANA PANICKER DATED 31.12.2003.

¶42

EXT.R5(d): TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN MANGALAM DAILY REPORTING THE SOPANA SANGEETHAM (KOTTIPPADI SEVA) PERFORMANCE OF 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶43

EXT.R5(e): TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY REGARDING THE PERFORMANCE OF 5TH RESPONDENT IN `KUDUKKA VEENA'.

¶44

EXT.R5(f): TRUE COPY OF THE VADYAKALANIDHI CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.8.2009.

¶45

EXT.R5(g): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INDIRA GANDHI PURASKARAM ISSUED TO ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶46

EXT.R5(h): TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATION GIVEN TO ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT FROM ALL INDIA RADIO TO PERFORM SOPANA SANGEETHAM DATED 5.3.03.

¶47

EXT.R5(i): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM HIGH COURT OF KERALA FOR HIS EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE IN PANCHAVADYAM.

¶48

EXT.R5(j): TRUE COPY OF THE SYLLABUS OF PANCHAVADYA VIBHAGAM FOLLOWED IN VAIKOM AND ATTINGAL KSHETHRA KALAPEETAM UNDER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶49

EXT.R5(k): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FINAL DRAFT RULES.

¶50

EXT.R5(l): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.7.2007 TRANSFERRING PETITIONER TO ATTINGAL KSHETHRA KALAPEETAM IN 2007.

¶51

EXT.R5(m): TRUE COPY OF THE R.O.C. NO.5912/CA NO.DT. 14.02.12.

¶52

EXT.R5(n): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13.3.2007 SUMITTED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE CULTURAL DIRECTOR, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

// TRUE COPY //

TKS

P.S. TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶57

W.P.(C)No.13831 of 2013

¶58

Dated 9^th October, 2013

¶59

JUDGMENT

¶60

The petitioner, claims to be a Teacher in Sopana Sangeetham in Kshethra Kala Peetom, Vaikom, filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order whereby he was transferred to Kshethra Kala Peetom, Attingal. The contention of the petitioner is that being a Teacher in Sopana Sangeetham he could not have been and therefore, should not have been transferred to Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom for taking classes in Panchavadyam. According to him, Sopana Sangeetham and Panchavadyam are different and distinct subjects going by the syllabus for teaching in Kshethra Kala Peetom under the first respondent and therefore, in the absence of a vacancy of Teacher in Sopana Sangeetham at Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom Ext.P4 order of transfer could not be given effect to. In short, according to the petitioner, as per Ext.P4, he was transferred to a non-existent post. The petitioner has produced various documents to show that he has been recognised as expert in Sopana Sangeetham. Refuting the said contentions a statement and additional statement, counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit have been filed by respondents 4 and 5. Both the party respondents and the respondent authorities refuted the

¶61

WP(C).No.13831/2013 2

¶62

contentions raised by the petitioner and according to them, the syllabus of Kshethra Kala Peetom, Vaikom and Kshethra Kala Peetom, Attingal would reveal that under the first respondent Sopana Sangeetham is being treated as a part of Panchavadyam. They have produced Annuexre-B time table which would reveal that the petitioner herein was taking classes for Sopana Sangeetham and also for Madhalam which is a percussion instrument, at Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom. It is contended by the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent that a perusal of Ext.P4, the impugned order, itself would reveal that the petitioner has been treated only as a teacher in Panchavadyam and as per Ext.P4 two teachers working at Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom and two teachers working at Vaikom Kshetra Kala Peetom were given transfer respectively to Kshethra Kala Peetom, Vaikom and Kshethra Kala Peetom, Attingal. The petitioner has been treated as a teacher in Panchavadyam in Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom and accordingly, he was transferred to Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom as a teacher in Panchavadyam.

¶63

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the

¶64

WP(C).No.13831/2013 3

¶65

learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5.

¶66

Ext.P1 is produced by the petitioner to contend that the Academy offers three years courses on the theoretical and practical aspects of five subjects including Panchavadyam, Sopana Sangeetham, Nagaswaram and Thavil and two years courses are also being offered for advanced study for those who passed the certificate examination on Sopana Sangeetham, Pani, Kuzhal, Nagaswaram and Thavil. It is the further contention of the petitioner that Ext.P6 would reveal that he was appointed as a teacher in Sopana Sangeetham under the first respondent. He has produced Exts.P3 and P8 to P11 to contend that he has been considered only as an artist in Sopana Sangeetham. But, virtually, a close scrutiny of Exts.P3, P10 and P11 relied on by the petitioner would reveal that they also certify the fact that the petitioner is good at Panchavadyam and percussion instruments. I am of the view that those aspects are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this case. Annexure-A is the syllabus for the course of study in Kshethra Kala Peetom, Vaikom and it would reveal that Sopana Sangeetham is included under Panchavadyam. Annexure-A would also show that for the purpose of study Panchavadyam wing consists of

¶67

¶68

WP(C).No.13831/2013

¶69

musical instruments and percussion instruments. In fact, 10 subjects are included in the Panchavadyam section and obviously the 10^th item therein is the Sopana Sangeetham. Annexure-B would reveal that at Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom the petitioner was imparting instructions in Madhalam and Sopana Sangeetham and the contention of the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 is that at Vaikom he was taking 12 hours in Madhalam and 10 hours in Sopana Sangeetham. According to them, at Attingal there is only one batch and altogether there are 105 students in the three years course. Annexure-B is the time table of Kshethra Kala Peetom, Vaikom and it would reveal that during his tenure there the petitioner was imparting instructions in Madhalam and Sopana Sangeetham. This fact remains undisputed and in the light of Annexure-B it is virtually incontestable. As a matter of fact, the documents relied on by the petitioner viz., Exts.P3, P10 and P11 would also reveal that the petitioner could effectively and efficiently play percussion instruments as well. In this context the contention raised by respondents 4 and 5 in their counter affidavit also assume relevance. It is stated in paragraph 6 therein that the petitioner is a certificate holder in Panchavadyam from Kshethra Kala Peetom Academy, Travancore Devaswom Board. This statement in the counter affidavit is also not

¶70

WP(C).No.13831/2013 5

¶71

specifically refuted by the petitioner. Under the Travancore Devaswom Board earlier there was only one Kshethra Kala Peetom that was at Vaikom and admittedly, Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom was established only later. The additional statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 would reveal that the syllabus of Kshethra Kala Peetom at Vaikom was adopted at Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom. The said specific statement made in paragraph 7 of the additional statement is also not disputed by the petitioner. Those indisputable facts referred above persuade me to come to the conclusion that a teacher who was taking classes in Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom can also impart instructions on the same subjects at Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom. As noticed hereinbefore, in Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom the petitioner was imparting instructions not only in Sopana Sangeetham but also in Madhalam. When the syllabus which is being followed in Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom is adopted in Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that Sopana Sangeetham and Madhalam are not to be taught as part of the curriculum in Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom. The apprehension of the petitioner that if he is transferred to Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom the students in Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom would be deprived of the service of a teacher who

¶72

¶73

WP(C).No.13831/2013

¶74

could impart instructions in Sopana Sangeetham and Madhalam also is unfounded. In that context it is to be noted that the 4^th and 5^th respondents have filed counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit in this writ petition and they have produced documents which would reveal the competency of the 5^th respondent in Sopana Sangeetham. Above all, Annexure-A syllabus would reveal that 10 subjects are included under Panchavadyam wing and obviously, the petitioner was teaching two of such subjects in Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom namely, Sopana Sangeetham and Madhalam. It is the specific contention of the respondents that the petitioner has been working in Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom for more than three years. In the circumstances mentioned above, the petitioner being a teacher attached to the Kala Peetom under the Travancore Devaswom Board he cannot contend that he shall not be transferred whilst he should be permitted to work at Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom itself. The petitioner is working in a transferable post. The facts expatiated above would reveal that the contentions of the petitioner cannot be upheld and in view of the fact that the same syllabus which is being followed in Vaikom Kshethra Kala Peetom was adopted in Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom the contention of the petitioner that he is not liable to be transferred on account of non-existence of a post to

¶75

¶76

WP(C).No.13831/2013

¶77

accommodate him at Attingal Kshethra Kala Peetom also cannot be accepted. For these reasons this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

Judge

TKS

N.Reghunath v. the Tdb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Reghunath v. the Tdb

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

K.Damodaran Vs Kerala Water Authority

N.Sumangala Devi Vs Assistant Educational Officer

James.M.M Vs Union of India

K.P.Krishnakumar Vs Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh IAS

Vineetha.P.M. Vs the District Educational Officer

Mary Jancy K.X Vs Special Officer