Dismissed

N.Krishnan Nampoothiri v. the Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC7 Jun 2017WP(C)/22573/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Travancore Devaswom Board's order which reverted petitioners from illegal temporary promotions back to their original driver posts. The court held the promotion was irregular and no vested right existed.

What did the court decide?

Order Exhibit P5 confirming reversion of petitioners to original posts was confirmed and the writ petition was dismissed.

N.Krishnan Nampoothiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/17TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 22573 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

N. KRISHNAN NAMPOOTHIRI, SUB GROUP OFFICER, MANIKANTAPURAM DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, CHANGANACHERRY GROUP, P.O. VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 538.

¶9

2. T. SREEKUMARAN NAIR,

¶10

SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PALKULANGARA DEVASWOM, P.O. PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 008.

¶11

¶12

K.SURESH KUMAR,

¶13

SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PARASUVACKAL DEVASWOM, PARASUVACKAL, PARASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 508.

¶14

¶15

T.I. CHANDRAMOHAN,

¶16

SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KUMMIL DEVASWOM, P.O. KUMMIL, KADACKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 536.

¶17

A.S. GOPAKUMAR, SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KUTTOOR DEVASWOM, VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 606.

¶18

¶19

¶20

N.R. MADHU,

¶21

SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, EDAYATTUKAVU DEVASWOM, PARACKAL, MEVADA, ETTUMANNUR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 573.

¶22

¶23

S.UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI,

¶24

SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PARIMANAM DEVASWOM, P.O. PARIMANAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 582.

¶25

WP(C).No. 22573 of 2016 (V)

¶26

8. P. ANEESH KUMAR, SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, RAJARAJESWARI DEVASWOM, NANTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶27

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S):

¶29

1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶30

2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶31

ADDL. R3 & R4 IMPLEADED

¶32

3. C.S. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, STRONG ROOM GUARD, THRIKKARIYOOR DEVASWOM, THRIKKARIYOOR GROUP, RESIDING AT "CHALIL", MANAKADU P.O., THODUPUZHA-685 608.

¶33

4. S. KRISHNA PRASAD, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.N.SIVA PRASAD, STRONG ROOM GUARD, PADANAYAR KULANGARA DEVASWOM, KARUNAGAPPALLY GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, RESIDING AT "SAI BHAVAN", MANAKKARA, SASTHANCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶34

ADDL. R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 04/08/2016 IN I.A.NO.11249/2016.

¶35

R1 & R2 BY SMT.A.SREEKALA, SC. ADDL. R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR, SMT.K.R.RENJU.

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

rs.

¶38

WP(C).No. 22573 of 2016 (V)

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶41

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE NOTE FILE DATED 22/01/2009.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 09/11/2015.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 07/06/2016.

¶42

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DATED 10/06/2016.

¶43

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER OF THE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 23/06/2016.

¶44

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED 11/09/2007.

¶45

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED 11/09/2007.

¶46

EXT.P8 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED 22/06/2006. EXT.P9 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED 19/07/2006. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED 19/07/2006. EXT.P11 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER DATED 29/12/2015.

¶47

EXT.P12 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF THE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 21/05/2014.

¶48

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶49

EXT.R3A	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/02/2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.R3B	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BOARD.
EXT.R3C	COPY OF THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 24/02/2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BOARD.

¶50

....2/-

¶51

WP(C).No. 22573 of 2016 (V)

¶52

EXT.R3D COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29/04/2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DEVASWOM.

¶53

EXT.R3E COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/06/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH OTHERS.

¶54

EXT.R3F COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/06/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

¶59

W.P.(C)No.22573 of 2016 V

¶60

Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2017

¶61

JUDGMENT

¶62

The petitioners assail Exhibit P5 order of the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, under which they allege that they were reverted as Drivers from Lower Division Clerk/ Sub Group Officer Grade-II . They say that this order was issued behind their back and without notice to them and, therefore, that such order is illegal and impermissible in law.

¶63

I have heard Sri.V.A.Mohammed, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.B.Harish Kumar, the learned counsel for additional respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

¶64

I notice from the pleadings on record and the materials available that the petitioners were originally working as Drivers and they were promoted temporarily

¶65

WPC 22573/16

¶66

¶67

as Lower Division Clerk/ Sub Group Officer Grade-II by the Board even though such appointments were not supported by any applicable Rules or Regulations. This led to a writ petition being filed by respondents 3 and 4, which culminated in a judgment, under which the respondents 1 and 2 were directed to consider the claim of respondents 3 and 4 against such allegedly illegal appointments. The Board, on a consideration of the same in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of this Court, issued Exhibit P5 order reverting the petitioners, finding that they were not in the first place eligible to be appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II, since they were only Drivers and the applicable recruitment rules do not permit any such category change. The petitioners have, as I have already noticed above, challenged the said order.

¶68

WPC 22573/16

¶69

¶70

The assertion of the petitioners is only that Exhibit P5 order has been issued without hearing them. They say that the Board has violated the basic principles of natural justice while issuing this order since they were validly working as Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II when this order was issued.

¶71

I am afraid that I cannot find sustenance for these submissions for the reason that their appointments as Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II in the first place itself was irregular and illegal. I say this because even as per the relevant applicable Regulations, relating to recruitment of Drivers, the petitioners could not have been appointed as Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II nor is there any quota reserved for them for such promotion or appointment. In the absence of any such enabling provision to appoint them as Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II, they cannot claim any vested right to continue in such post merely

¶72

WPC 22573/16

¶73

¶74

because they were earlier irregularly appointed.

¶75

In such view of the matter, I have no other option but to repel the contentions of the petitioners and to confirm Exhibit P5 order issued by the second respondent finding it to be in order and in terms of the applicable Statutes and Regulations. I order so.

¶76

This writ petition is thus dismissed.

¶77

Devan Ramachandran, Judge

¶78

tkv

N.Krishnan Nampoothiri v. the Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Krishnan Nampoothiri v. the Travancore Devaswom Board

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

The Manager, Kpes Higher Secondary School, Kayakkodi Vs Dr.Usha Titus

Kerala Shipping Mill Workers' Union Vs Kerala State Textile Corporation & Ors.

The Manager Vs State of Kerala

T.P James Vs Ernakulam District Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

Dr.Mary Mathew Vs Greater Cochin Development Authority

V.P.Ibrahim Kutty Vs Hotel Park Residency