Allowed

K.R. Sanjayan Nampoothiri, v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC1 Sept 2021WP(C)/15548/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his transfer and sought to continue for another year. The court held that based on a specific direction to relieve him after the festival, he is entitled to continue in the post of Melsanthi at the P.D. Manikanteswaram Devaswom, Kottarakkara, till 13.09.2021.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed in part, permitting the petitioner to continue till 13.09.2021 in the P.D. Manikanteswaram Devaswom, Kottarakkara.

K.R. Sanjayan Nampoothiri, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15548 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.R. SANJAYAN NAMPOOTHIRI, AGED 49 YEARS MELSANTHI, P.D. MANIKANTESWARAM DEVASWOM, NOW WORKING AS SANTHI GANAPATHI KOVIL, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶8

BY ADVS. K.SASIKUMAR P.S.RAGHUKUMAR S.ARAVIND

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.

¶11

2 THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.

¶12

3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD KOTTARAKKARA GROUP, KOTTARAKKARA 691 506.

¶13

4 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KULASEKHARANALLUR SUB GROUP, KOTTARAKKARA 691 506.

¶14

BY ADV C.K.PAVITHRAN, SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C) NO. 15548 OF 2021

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Petitioner was posted as Melsanthi in

¶20

P.D.Manikanteswaram Devaswom, Kottarakkara and he joined on 14.09.2020. According to him, the tenure as Melsanthi in Devaswom is one year and hence the santhis of sub temples normally should get a tenure of three years, continuously. By Ext.P2 and P3 orders, the second respondent proceeded for selection to the post of Melsanthis of different temples including P.D Manikanteswaram Devaswom and the petitioner was directed to be shifted from there to any other temple in the group. The petitioner requested for continuation in the sub temple for another two years. He has approached this court seeking reliefs to quash Ext.P7 order and to declare that the petitioner being posted as the santhi of the sub temple Ganapathi Kovil, P.D Manikanteswaram Devaswom, he has a right normally to continue for a tenure of three years.

¶21

After perusing R1(a) the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his claim. The learned counsel submitted

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 15548 OF 2021

¶24

that he was not pursuing the larger claims made in the writ

¶25

petition. His limited contention was that by virtue of Ext.R1(a), the santhis referred to in Ext.R1(a) were selected on the basis of the interview and the persons who were chosen were appointed as santhi for a period of one year against the respective vacancies. The learned counsel specifically invited my attention to page 2 of Ext.R1(a) which indicates that the copy of the proceedings was marked, inter alia, to the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Changanassery as Item No.15, with a direction that since festival was proceeding in P.D Manikanteswaram Devaswom Kottarakkara, the petitioner may be released after the festival was over.

¶26

The contention of the learned counsel for the

¶27

petitioner was that by virtue of the above direction he took charge on 14.09.2021 and accordingly, his one year tenure will be over only on 13.09.2021. Opposing the above, the learned counsel for the Board contended that normally festival

¶28

is conducted in Malayalam month of Medam and in the

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 15548 OF 2021

¶31

present case, festival was celebrated only later, due to the

¶32

pandemic. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was due to reasons beyond the control of the authorities. It was further contended that by itself will not confer any specific right on the petitioner since R1(a) refers to the postings of the several persons by a common list and they should have a uniform period of tenure of one year.

¶33

Though the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent- Devaswom seems to be attractive, it seems that only in the case of the petitioner, a specific direction was given to relieve him after the festival was over. Necessarily it has to be treated as an exceptional circumstance and not as applicable to all others. In the absence of any specific provision in Ext.R1(a) which indicates the date of commencement of one year period and since the Devaswom could not point out any Rule, guidelines or any notification for the date of commencement of one year period, I am inclined to treat the one year period in the case of the petitioner alone

¶34

as commencing from the date when he took charge in the

¶35

¶36

WP(C) NO. 15548 OF 2021

¶37

transfer vacancy. Accordingly, he is entitled to continue till 13.09.2021.

¶38

The learned counsel for the Devaswom pointed out any change in the date of relieving of the petitioner may have a cascading effect since another person has now been transferred to P.D.Manikanteswaram Devaswom, Kottarakkara against the transferred vacancy of the petitioner, necessarily it may affect his taking charge in P.D Manikanteswaram Devaswom. The Devaswom shall make necessary arrangements to take care of this situation. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed in part, permitting the petitioner to continue till 13.09.2021 in P.D.Manikanteswaram Devaswaom Kottarakkara as referred to in Ext.R1(a).

¶39

sd/-

¶40

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶41

R.AV

¶42

¶43

WP(C) NO. 15548 OF 2021

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15548/2021

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit	P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 14.09.2020 ISSUED FROM THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER., CHANGANASSERRY.
Exhibit	P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 31.05.2021 IN ROC 59/2021/S ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2021 IN ROC 48/2021/S ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.06.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE IST RESPONDENT BOARD.
Exhibit	P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.06.2021 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.6.2021 IN WPC NO. 12397/2021 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT.
Exhibit	P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2021 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 15.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶47

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT R1(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.ROC.38/2020/S

¶49

DATED 09.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM

¶50

COMMISSIONER.

K.R. Sanjayan Nampoothiri, v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R. Sanjayan Nampoothiri, 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

Sajeev Kumar K.S. Vs the State of Kerala

Geetha P.R. Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan.O.a, Vs State of Kerala

R.Nagarajan Vs Union of India

Jeevan Johny Vs the Pharmaceutical Corporation (General Medicines) Kerala Ltd.

Sreeja.C.S. Vs State Bank of Travancore