Dismissed

S.Manikandan v. P.Venugopalan Nair

Kerala HC14 Feb 2014Con.Case(C)/1173/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt case filed against the Travancore Devaswom Commissioner for alleged wilful disobedience of a Court order regarding category changes. The Court held that the Respondent followed the rules by reserving only 5% of vacancies and dismissed the contempt petition. The matter is disposed of without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the order separately.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed. The petitioner retains the right to challenge the order dated 15.10.2013 in other appropriate proceedings.

S.Manikandan Vs P.Venugopalan Nair — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/25TH MAGHA, 1935 Con.Case(C).No. 1173 of 2013 (S) IN WP(C).25537/2009

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 25537/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-02-2013

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER 2 IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶7

S.MANIKANDAN, AGED 31 YEARS S/O. SASIDHARAN NAIR, VALAVEEDU, JANARDHANA PURAM VARKALA.P.O.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND SRI.SHINDO VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT NO2 IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶10

P.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BUILDING, NANDHANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011.

¶11

R-R BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL

¶12

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

RKC

¶14

Con.Case(C).No. 1173 of 2013

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶17

ANN.1: CERTIFIED COPY OF the JUDGMENT DT.22.2.13 PASSED BY THIS BON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.25537/09

¶18

ANN.2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.20.3.13 SUBMITTED BEFORE the RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED THROUGH THE CONTROLLING OFFICER NAMELY, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SABARIMALA DEVASWOM

¶19

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANN.R(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ROC.8031/01/EST.2 DT.31.10.05

¶21

ANN.R(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ROC NO.8031/01/EST.II DT.30.3.06

¶22

ANN.R(c): TRUE COPY OF THE NO.ROC 7811/11/EST.1 DATED 27.4.12

¶23

ANN.R(d): TRUE COPY OF the PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER NO.ROC 14311/13/EST. DT.15.10.13

¶24

ANN R(e): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ROC NO.8031/2001/EST.II DT.28.4.05

¶25

ANN.R(f): TRUE COPY OF the DETAILS REGARDING THE ARISING OF VACANCY OF LDC/SGO GRADE-II IN EACH CALENDAR YEAR STARTING FROM 2005 TO 2013

RKC

TRUE COPY

PA TO JDUGE.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶30

Cont.Case(C).No.1173 of 2013 ---------------------------------

¶31

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2014

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent herein who is the Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board has wilfully disobeyed the direction issued by this Court in Annexure-1 judgment delivered on 22.2.2013 in W.P.(C) No.25537 of 2009. The petitioner has alleged that though this Court had directed that in the event of the petitioner and two others filing a fresh application before the Devaswom Commissioner through their controlling officers claiming change of category in accordance with Ext.R2(a) draft rules, the Devaswom Commissioner shall pass orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of the applications, till date, the applications for category change have not been considered and disposed of.

¶34

The respondent has sworn to an affidavit dated 23.10.2013 and produced along with it as Annexure R(d), a copy of the proceedings dated 15.10.2013 issued by the Devaswom Commissioner. The respondent has averred in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that as per Ext.R2(a) draft rules only 5% of the vacancies can be earmarked for the change of category of Strong Room

¶35

..2..

¶36

Cont.Case(C).No.1173 of 2013

¶37

Guards as Lower Division Clerks that during the period from January 2005 to September 2013, 218 vacancies of Lower Division Clerks/Sub Group Office Grade-II had arisen, that only 11 out of the said 218 vacancies can be filled up by category change of Strong Room Guards, that as on the date of the affidavit 12 persons had already been given category change and therefore an order was issued to the effect that the petitioner's application for change of category will be considered against future vacancies.

¶38

When the contempt case came up before me for hearing on 2.12.2013, I directed the respondent to place on record a copy of the rule and also to file a statement setting out the number of vacancies that had arisen during the period from 2005 to 2013 in the cadre of Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II. The respondent has accordingly filed an affidavit dated 31.12.2013 and produced along with it a copy of the relevant rules. The respondent has also given the year vice break up of vacancies which had arisen during the period from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2013. The affidavit discloses that during the said period 218 vacancies of Lower Division Clerks/Sub Group Officer Grade-II had arisen in the Travancore Devaswom Board. Rule 2 of Ext.R2(a) draft rules referred to in the judgment delivered in the writ petition stipulates that 5% of the vacancies arising in each calendar year in the cadre

¶39

..3..

¶40

Cont.Case(C).No.1173 of 2013

¶41

of Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II under the Board shall be reserved to be filled up by category change from eligible Strong Room Guards. The explanatory note states that the said rule has been issued in view of the decision taken by the Board to set apart 5% of the total vacancies arising in a calendar year for Strong Room Guards. Going by the year vice vacancies, I am of the opinion that as contended by the respondent only 11 persons could have been appointed by category change. It is for that reason that the respondent has issued Ext.R(d) proceedings dated 15.10.2013 wherein he has taken the stand that as on the date of the order the petitioner cannot be given category change and that his case will be considered against future vacancies. It cannot therefore be said that the respondent has acted in contempt of this Court's direction in Annexure-I judgment. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed, but without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, if he is so advised, to challenge Annexure-R(d) order in other appropriate proceedings.

¶42

Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.

¶43

rkc.

S.Manikandan v. P.Venugopalan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Manikandan v. P.Venugopalan Nair

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

Ashoman E.S Vs a.Unnikrishnan

Siby Paul Vs Cletus K.Joseph

K.M. Shaji Vs Cletus K. Joseph

Joseph Mathew Vs Superintending Engineer

Sarojini Vs the Joint Director

Asok Kumar Vs Superintending Engineer