Dismissed

Sujith P v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC3 Dec 2018WP(C)/1569/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions were filed by temple employees claiming regularization of their daily wage employment. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that post the establishment of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, recruitment and regularization must be done solely through the Board.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; regularization claims rejected. The authority can only make regular appointments through the Devaswom Recruitment Board.

Sujith P Vs Cochin Devaswom Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1569 of 2018-U

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SUJITH P AGED 38 YEARS S/O.K.UNNIKRISHNAN, KIZHAKKEPPTTU WARRIAM, PERUMANAM,CHERPPU P.O., THRISSUR 680 561, WORKING AS KAZHAKKAM,THOTTIPAL BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, ARATTUPUZHA - 690 565.

¶8

2 SUMITH.P. AGED 29 YEARS S/O.K.UNNIKRISHNAN, KIZHAKKEPPTTU WARRIAM, PERUMANAM,CHERPPU P.O., THRISSUR 680 561, WORKING AS KAZHAKKAM,KIDAYILKULAM MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE, URAKOM,THRISSUR 680 562.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.C.A.SEENA SRI.K.P.ARUN (CHERTHALA)

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR 680 001 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY

¶12

2 SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING,ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.K.P.SUDHEER,SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).1099/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶19

MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶20

WP(C).No. 1099 of 2018-J

¶21

PETITIONER/S:

¶22

1 ABILASH.C

¶23

AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, NAGATH HOUSE, URAKOM P.O., THRISSUR-680562, WORKING AS 'SRUTHI', URAKATHAMMA THIRUVADY TEMPLE, URAKOM P.O., THRISSUR-680562.

¶24

2 JITHU C. R. AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. RAJU, CHOONEZHATH HOUSE, METHALA, KONDUNGALLOOR-680669, WORKING AS 'COUNTER HELPER', KANNAMKULAM TEMPLE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR-680664.

¶25

3 ARUN RAJ V. B. AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, VADEPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYYAMPILLY P.O., KUZHUPILLY-682501, WORKING AS 'ADICHUTHALY' MAHADEVA TEMPLE, KUZHUPILLY-682501.

¶26

BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN

¶27

RESPONDENT/S:

¶28

1 COCHIN DEVASOM BOARD ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680001,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

¶29

2 SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR-680001.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).1569/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

W.P.(C) Nos.1099&1569/2018

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioners in WP(C) No.1099 of 2018 are working in various Temples in various posts on daily wages. From the averments in the Writ Petition it is seen that the 1^st petitioner has been working from 2007 onwards, 2^nd petitioner from 2009 onwards and 3^rd petitioner from 2012 onwards on daily wages. They filed this writ petition claiming regularisation pointing out that their representations are not considered.

¶34

2. The petitioners in WP(C) No.1569 of 2018 are claiming that they have been working from 01.01.2012 onwards and from 22.01.2007 onwards on daily wages in different posts. Both of them claim regularisation. Pointing out that the representations submitted by them were not considered, they filed the writ petition.

¶35

3. The learned Standing Counsel on instructions submitted that recruitment to various posts except to hereditary post have already been entrusted to the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board which came into force

¶36

on 01.03.2014 and thereafter there cannot be any

¶37

W.P.(C) Nos.1099&1569/2018

¶38

:4:

¶39

regular appointment through the Board.

¶40

4. It is also pointed out that the Devaswom Recruitment Board had already invited applications issuing notification and conducted selection; published

¶41

rank list and regular appointments are already made/being made to various posts. The petitioners could have submitted applications pursuant to the notification.

¶42

After the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act has came into force, regular appointment can be made

¶43

only by the Recruitment Board. In the above circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.

¶44

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

rkc

W.P.(C) Nos.1099&1569/2018

¶50

:5:

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1569/2018

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29/2/2012 OF THE DEVASWOM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANCHIKULAM GROUP SANCTION BY DAILY WAGES TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶54

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/3/2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶55

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 9/5/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/12/2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶56

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT DATED 12/2/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶57

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER DATED 3/10/2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER

¶58

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4/3/2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶59

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4/1/2008 OF DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER SANCTIONING DAILY WAGES TO THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶60

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER DATED 3/10/2013 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶61

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1/1/2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶62

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 25/10/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶63

W.P.(C) Nos.1099&1569/2018

¶64

:6:

¶65

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1099/2018

¶66

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶67

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 06.03.2011 ISSUED BY DEVASWOM OFFICER ELAMKUNNAPUZHA TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶68

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.03.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 09.03.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶69

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.12.2012 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT DATED 12.02.2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER DATED 03.10.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER.

¶70

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04.03.2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶71

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.12.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶72

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER DATED 03.10.2013 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶73

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 01.01.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶74

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.03.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶75

W.P.(C) Nos.1099&1569/2018

¶76

:7:

¶77

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF CALL LETTER DATED 03.10.2013 SEND TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26.12.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Sujith P v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujith P v. Cochin 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

S.N.Sobha Vs Smt. Anila

B.K.Sandhya Vs Union of India

Faseela @ Molly Basheer Vs District Collector

Abilash.C Vs Cochin Devasom Board

C.Mullakoya Vs the Administrator

Sainul Abid Vs the Administrator U.T of Lakshadweep