Allowed

S.Vijaya Kumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC8 Oct 2020WA/1086/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an appeal challenging the appointment of a Chief Tutor. After verifying the sealed interview results, the court held the Board could appoint the better candidate and directed the Board to frame recruitment rules within six months to avoid future litigation.

What did the court decide?

The Board directed to frame rules for recruitment and conditions of service within six months.

S.Vijaya Kumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 16TH ASWINA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.1086 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2020 IN WP(C) 33546/2019(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT:

¶10

S.VIJAYA KUMAR AGED 53 YEARS

¶11

S/O.SAHADEVA SHARMA, VISAKHA BHAVAN, AYYARKULANGARA, VAIKOM P.O, DISTRICT KOTTAYAM-

¶12

686 141.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.T.SANJAY SHRI.MIDHUN R. SHRI.SANIL KUMAR G.

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANDANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.

¶17

2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER IN CHARGE, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.

¶18

3 THE DIRECTOR, CULTURAL AFFAIRS SECTION, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.

¶19

4 THE DIRECTOR, KSHETHRA KALAPEEDOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, VAIKOM, DISTRICT KOTTAYAM-686 141.

¶20

5 THE MANAGER, KSHETHRA KALAPEEDOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, VAIKOM, DISTRICT KOTTAYAM-686 141.

¶21

W.A.No.1086/2020

¶22

¶23

6 SHRI.S.P.SREEKUMAR, TUTOR, KSHETHRA KALAPEEDOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, VAIKOM, DISTRICT, KOTTAYAM-686 141.

¶24

7 R.HARIHARAN, S/O.K.RAMA IYYER, THEKEKOYIMMA MADOM, EAST GATE VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM-686 141 (THE SECOND PETITIONER IN WP NO.33546/2019)

¶25

R1-3 BY SRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD R6- BY SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.1086/2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of October 2020

¶31

Shaffique, J.

¶32

This appeal has been filed challenging an order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C)No.33546/2019. The issue related to the appointment to the post of Chief Tutor. The appellant claims to be a person, who was expert in Takil and was working as a Tutor since 1994. When the post of Chief Tutor became vacant, the appellant submitted an application. A few other teachers in the post of Tutor also submitted applications. The contention urged by the appellant was that he being a person, who do not have the diploma from the said organization, is not being permitted to participate in the selection process.

¶33

The learned single Judge, however, permitted the respondents to conduct selection and appointment, after considering Sri. R. Hariharan, who was the 2^nd petitioner in the writ petition.

¶34

When the appeal was filed by the 1^st petitioner/appellant, an interim order was passed by this Court directing the appellant Sri. S.Vijayakumar also to be considered in the interview for the aforesaid post. We had also directed the Board to place the result of the interview before this Court in a sealed cover. The appointment to the post of 'Chief

¶35

W.A.No.1086/2020

¶36

¶37

Tutor (Takil)' was to be made only after getting permission from this Court.

¶38

The learned counsel has produced before us a sealed cover, which we have opened and as per the recommendation of the Interview Board Sri. S.P. Sreekumar appears to have got more marks than the appellant.

¶39

Having regard to the above said factual aspect, we do not think that there is any necessity to consider any other contentions on merits. The appellant was given an opportunity to participate in the selection process and when there is a better candidate, definitely, the Board is entitled to appoint him as Chief Tutor.

¶40

The learned counsel for the appellant, however, has placed before us judgment dated 28.9.2016 in W.P.(C)No.15148/2015, wherein a direction had been issued by this court to ensure that sufficient rules are made to govern recruitment, promotion and other conditions of service of the staff in the Kshethra Kalapeedam, Vaikom. However, it is brought to our notice that so far no such rules had been framed. It is apparent that in the absence of such rules, the conditions of service of persons, who are employed in the said establishment, will always subject matter of litigation. To avoid such contingencies, it is only proper that the rules are framed regulating the conditions of service of the employees.

¶41

W.A.No.1086/2020

¶42

¶43

We, therefore, direct the Board to frame such rules within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The sealed cover shall be returned to the counsel appearing for the Devaswom Board. It shall be open for the Board to make appointments in accordance with the selection conducted.

¶44

The writ appeal is disposed of with the above observation.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

acd

S.Vijaya Kumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vijaya Kumar v. 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 Secretary to Government Vs Xavier V.X.

Athira Sadhu (Employee Code NO.5527) Vs Union of India

Rajeeva Lochanan K R Vs Sunil Barthwal

Union of India Vs Sumathi Ravichandran

S.Rajalakshmy, Vs Sasidharan K.V.

Sumathi Ravindran Vs Union of India