High Court dismissed this writ appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order rejecting the petitioner's claim for inner temple posting. The Court held that a clause allowing transfer near residence does not grant a right to change specific temple duties, and no review of the 2010 decision was warranted.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/19TH PHALGUNA, 1937
WA.No. 482 of 2016 () IN WP(C).4661/2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4661/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-02-2016
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
N.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN ELAYATH, PUROTHITHAN THIRUVALLOM DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIRUVALLOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 027
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR SMT.T.MANASY SRI.D.JEEVAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM 695 003. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE SECRETARY TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.
3. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.
4. K.V.PRAVEEN KUMAR PUROHITHAN, THIRUVALLOM DEVASWOM TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVALLOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 027.
BY SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. &
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
================
W.A. No. 482 of 2016
===============
Dated this, the 9th day of March, 2016
J U D G M E N T
Ashok Bhushan, C.J.
Heard Sri.P.Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant.
W.A. No.482/16
-:2:-
Ext.P7 and directing for reconsideration of the issue in the light of the various issues which were noticed by the learned Single Judge. In pursuance of the judgment of this Court, the Chief Commissioner of Travancore Devaswom Board considered the matter afresh and a decision was taken and in the order, Chief Commissioner opined that permitting the 4th respondent to work inside the temple is to be continued and there was no justification for disturbing the existing position under which the 4th respondent was continuing inside the temple and petitioner at kadavu. The said order was not made subject matter to challenge by the petitioner and he acceded to the said order.
W.A. No.482/16
-:3:-
Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
W.A. No.482/16
-:4:-
of the judgment of this Court dated 19/10/2009 in WP(C) No. 22978/2009, Ext.P8. In the order, the reasons were given as to why the 4th respondent should be allowed to continue inside the temple. It is useful to refer to reasons given in paragraphs 5 and 6.
“5. The conduct of Shri Praveenkumar has been good and has not invited any adverse comments or complaints. But it has been pointed out by the local devotees and others that Shri Vijayakumar is arrogant and indifferent. The fact that he has once been punished by a termination order cannot be totally ignored though he has been subsequently exonerated. A person whose behaviour is spotless would not in normal circumstances be awarded with a punishment as harsh as termination.
6. While issuing the earlier order (quashed by the High Court) I had overlooked the point that Shri Praveen has applied to the vacant post inside the temple and it is not logical to infer that he would have thought about the possibility of a posting at the kadavu. The rituals within the temple and the kadavu are one and the same. Considering all these facts and taking into account the performance record of both the purohitans, I do not find any necessity or justification to disturb the existing postings. It is just and proper that the present arrangement is allowed to continue, as no public interest will be served by disturbing the status quo. Nor will such an order violate the
W.A. No.482/16
-:5:-
principles of natural justice.”
The order which was passed in pursuance of the judgment of the Court permitting the 4th respondent to continue inside the temple and petitioner at kadavu was never challenged by the petitioner and he acceded to the said order. It is not necessary for us to consider the submission that Ext.P10 order was not in accordance with the judgment of this Court and the issues which were directed to be considered. The representation which is claimed to have been filed by the petitioner to get a posting inside the temple is based on Ext.P11, which is the transfer norms.
“14. If an employee has only two years of service to his credit, he is entitled to get transfer to a place near his residents.”
to a person who is to retire within two years to submit an application for transfer to a place near his residence. Such benefit is extended to a person retiring within two years to have a posting near his home town. Present is not a case where petitioner is
W.A. No.482/16
-:6:-
seeking transfer from one temple of Devaswom Board to another temple. Petitioner is claiming his right to start performing duties inside the temple. It is to be noted that the petitioner and the 4th respondent are only engaged for giving assistance and pooja for bali tharppanam . Ext.P10 decision having been taken in 2010 permitting the 4th respondent to continue in temple and the petitioner at kadavu, it is for the Board to consider as to whether there is any change of circumstances so as to review the administrative decision taken in the year 2010. The basis on which representation is submitted, i.e., clause 14 of the circular dated 14/2/2005, does not give any right to the petitioner to claim his posting inside the temple.
Writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Rp9/3/2016 //True Copy//
PS to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an employee entitled to transfer near residence within two years of retirement has a right to claim a specific posting inside the temple rather than near residence.
Whether the Board erred in not reviewing the 2010 administrative decision regarding the petitioner's posting based on new representation.
Whether the Single Judge committed any error by dismissing the writ petition against the order rejecting the petitioner's request for inner temple posting.
N.Vijayakumar
Travancore Devaswom Board Nanthancode
The Secretary Travancore Devaswom Board Nanthancode
The Devaswom Commissioner Travancore Devaswom Board
K.V.Praveenkumar Purohit
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
