Dismissed

E P Anilkumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Aug 2022WP(C)/26879/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's application for the post of Melsanthi at Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms. The rejection was due to the absence of a mandated experience certificate in the prescribed format. Relying on Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation v. HL Kaveri, the court held that the Board was in no fault and no m

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for.

E P Anilkumar Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶3

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 2ND BHADRA, 1944
W.P.(C)NO.26879OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

E.P.ANILKUMAR
MELSANTHI, ELAMBALLI DEVASWOM, MUNDAKKAYAM GROUP,
RESIDING AT EDAKKATTU ILLOM, SOUTH PAMPADY P.O.,
CHERUVALLICKAVU, KOTTAYAM - 686 521.

¶8

BY ADVS.
K.SANDESH RAJA
T.ISSAC

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

3 THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶13

4 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶14

5 THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶15

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶16

¶17

6THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, MUNDAKKAYAM GROUP,
MUNDAKKAYAM,
KOTTAYAM - 686 513.

¶18

SRI.G.BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL, TRAVANCORE
DEVASWOM BOARD,
SMT.DEVISHRI R- GOVT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶21

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶24

The petitioner, who submitted Exts.P2 and P2(b) applications dated 18.07.2022, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 06.07.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1198 ME, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 communication dated 30.07.2022 of the 4^th respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the petitioner is informed that Exts.P2 and P2(b) applications dated 18.07.2022 for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1198 ME stand rejected, since those applications are not supported by experience certificate in the prescribed format, as provided in Ext.P1 notification and that a copy

¶25

of the SSLC certificate was not enclosed along with those applications. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent, who is the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, to consider Ext.P5 appeal dated 12.08.2022, which is one filed against the rejection of Exts.P2 and

¶26

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶27

¶28

P2(a) applications made by the petitioner.

¶29

On 22.08.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions. On 23.08.2022, the learned Standing Counsel has made available for the perusal of this Court

¶30

and also the learned counsel for the petitioner, a copy of the applications submitted by the petitioner on 18.07.2022, within the time limit prescribed in Ext.P1 notification, and also a copy of request dated 16.08.2022 made by the petitioner, before the 4^th respondent Devaswom Commissioner, seeking permission to cure the defect in Exts.P2 and P2(b) applications in not submitting the experience certificate in the format, which forms part of the application form. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

¶32

learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the respondents.

¶33

The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P4 communication dated 30.07.2022 issued by the 4^th respondent Devaswom Commissioner, whereby the petitioner was informed that

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶36

Exts.P2 and P2(b) applications made for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikapuram Devaswoms stand rejected for the reasons stated therein and whether the petitioner is entitled for a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P5 appeal.

¶37

The qualification prescribed for selection as Melsanthi in Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom is that the applicant should be a person having service as Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years out of a total period of 12 years in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship. In the order dated 08.11.2021 in SSCR No.5 of 2021 this Court found that the Travancore Devaswom

¶38

Board shall prescribe a format for the certificate that has to be enclosed along with the application for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple

¶39

showing the required experience of the candidate in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship, specifying the competent authority who has to issue such certificate in respect of the temples under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board and in respect of temples other than those under the management of the Board,

¶40

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶41

¶42

where public is having right to worship. The Board was directed to take a decision in that regard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of the said order, which was directed to be placed before this Court for approval.

¶43

Based on the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 08.11.2021 in SSCR No.5 of 2021, the Travancore Devaswom Board produced the format of the certificate that has to be enclosed along with the application for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, showing the required experience of the candidates, as Annexure A1 along with DBA No.5 of 2022. That application was disposed of by order dated 04.07.2022. Paragraph 18 and also the last paragraph of the said order read thus;

¶44

“18. Having perused Annexure A1 format of the experience certificate that has to be enclosed along with the application for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, showing the required experience of the candidates, we find that, in Clause (4) of the format (above the column) the required qualification has to be specified, i.e., the applicant should be a person having service as Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years out of a total period of 12 years in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship. In addition to this, the experience

¶45

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶46

¶47

certificate shall bear the full name, designation and address along with the office seal of the officer/authority issuing such certificate and also the date. The Board shall not permit any candidate to substitute the experience certificate enclosed along with the application, which shall be specified in the format of the experience certificate and also in the notification.

¶48

Subject to the aforesaid modification, we grant approval to (Annexure A1) format of experience certificate that has to be enclosed along with the application for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, showing the required experience of the candidates.”

¶49

Exts.P2 and P2(b) applications dated 18.07.2022 submitted by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 06.07.2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms are not supported by experience certificate in the prescribed format issued by the competent authority showing the required experience.

¶50

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that there is omission on

¶51

the part of the petitioner in submitting experience certificate in the prescribed format, which forms part of the application form, along with Exts.P2 and P2(a) applications. On receipt of Ext.P4 communication of the 4^th respondent, the petitioner submitted a

¶52

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶53

¶54

request dated 16.08.2022 before the 4^th respondent to condone the defect noted in those applications, since the petitioner has subsequently submitted Ext.P3 experience certificate in the prescribed format and also Ext.P3(b) relevant extract of SSLC certificate.

¶55

The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that, when Exts.P2 and P2(b) applications dated 18.07.2022 made by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 06.07.2022 are admittedly not supported by experience certificate issued by the competent authority in the prescribed format showing the required experience, the 2^nd respondent Board cannot be found fault with in rejecting those applications made by the petitioner. The rejection of those applications, for the aforesaid reason, was communicated to the petitioner vide Ext.P4. The fact that those applications were not supported by an experience certificate in the prescribed format showing the required experience is admitted in the request dated 16.08.2022 made by the petitioner before the 4^th respondent Devaswom Commissioner.

¶56

The qualification prescribed in Ext.P1 notification dated

¶57

06.07.2022 for selection as Melsanthi in Sabarimala Devaswom and

¶58

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶59

¶60

Malikappuram Devaswom is that the applicant should be a person having service as Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years out of a total period of 12 years in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship.

¶61

The terms and conditions, which form part of Ext.P1 notification, require the applicant to submit the application in the prescribed format, which has to be supported by various documents including experience certificate in the prescribed format showing the required experience of the applicant. The last date for submission of applications fixed in Ext.P1 notification was 21.07.2022. From the copy of the application made available for the perusal of this Court and also to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, would show that the petitioner submitted the applications on 20.07.2022. Those applications were not supported by an experience certificate in the prescribed format, which forms part of the form of application, showing the required experience of the petitioner. The said fact is not in dispute. Only after the receipt of Ext.P4 communication dated 30.07.2022 whereby the petitioner was informed about rejection of those applications, he submitted the request dated 16.08.2022 before the 4^th respondent.

¶62

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶63

¶64

10. In Karnataka State Seeds Development

¶65

Corporation Limited v. HL Kaveri [(2020) 3 SCC 108] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which application for appointment to the post of Senior Assistant and Junior Assistant pursuant to a notification dated 11.11.2013 issued by the appellant Corporation was not supported by the experience certificates in terms of that notification. The High Court of Karnataka by judgment dated 01.02.2019 directed the Corporation to consider the claim of the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner taking note of the work experience certificate and that order of the High Court has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and it was ordered that it shall not be treated as a precedent. The Apex Court noticed that the 1^st respondent has not enclosed her experience certificate along with the application. In the given circumstances, the Apex Court found no error being committed by the Corporation in its decision making process, while rejecting the application of the 1^st respondent for non-submission of necessary experience certificate which was to

¶66

be enclosed along with the application as required in terms of the notification dated 11.11.2013. The Apex Court held that the Division Bench committed a manifest error by taking note of the experience certificate to support the claim of the 1^st respondent for

¶67

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶68

¶69

appointment without even indicating the post for which her claim could be considered in terms of the notification dated 11.11.2013. The Apex Court observed that, merely because the 1^st respondent had approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, that would not be sufficient to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in overreaching the rights of the candidates who were otherwise eligible for appointment. Accordingly the Apex Court allowed the Civil Appeal thereby setting aside the judgment of the High Court dated 01.02.2019.

¶70

In the instant case, admittedly, Exts.P2 and P2(b) applications made by the petitioner for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms were not supported by experience certificate in the prescribed format, as provided in Ext.P1 notification, showing the required experience of the applicant. Though the format of that certificate forms part of the application form, the petitioner has not chosen to submit experience certificate in the prescribed format showing the required experience. In such circumstances, the 2^nd respondent Board cannot be found fault with in rejecting Exts.P2 and P2(b) applications made by the petitioner, for the reasons stated in Exts.P4. When the rejection of the applications made by the

¶71

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶72

¶73

petitioners pursuant to Ext.P1 notification is for the above reason, no purpose will be served by directing the 3^rd respondent to consider

¶74

Ext.P5 appeal made by the petitioner.

¶75

In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly

¶76

dismissed. The petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed

¶77

for. No order as to costs.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶82

¶83

W.P.(C) No.26879 of 2022

¶84

¶85

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26879/2022

¶86

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶87

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ROC NO.04/2022/S` `DATED 6/7/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION` `DATED 18/7/2022 FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF` `MELSANTHI IN SABARIMALA DEVASWOM SUBMITTED BY THE` `PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2A`	`LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT.P2.`
`Exhibit P2B`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION` `DATED 18/7/2022 FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF` `MELSANTHI IN MALIKAPURAM DEVASWOM SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P2C`	`LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT.P2(B).`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE` `DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COM-` `MISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P3A`	`LEGIBLE TYPED COPY OF EXT.P3.`
`Exhibit P3B`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MARK` `SHEET OF SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE EX-` `AMINATION OF THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO ROC 04/22/S DATED` `30/7/2022 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RE-` `SPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED 12/8/2022` `FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`

E P Anilkumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E P Anilkumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Ramesh Vs State of Kerala

Beenasarasan, Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Matha Saw Mill Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Muthuraman.S Vs James Varghese

Narayana Menon Vs Pazhanchery Unnikrishnan