Disposed

Vaisakhmohan M. v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC9 Jan 2023WP(C)/4988/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of several petitions concerning recruitment to the post of Kazhakom in temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board. It directed the Board to give priority to candidates from the expired select list for casual/daily wage vacancies and to follow transparent selection procedures for such posts.

What did the court decide?

The Board directed to give priority to candidates from the 01.12.2018 select list for daily wage/casual Kazhakom vacancies arising before a new select list; the Board directed to follow guidelines in

Vaisakhmohan M. Vs Cochin Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944 D.B.P.NO. 50 OF 2020

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB

¶7

PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 ADARSH A.G., SCREENA, VILAIKKADU, MADAVOOR P.O., PALLIKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 602.

¶10

2 AJITH KRISHNAN K.S., KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHENVEEDU, THENGUMKODE K.T. KUNNU P.O., KOLLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 608.

¶11

3 AKHILRAJ S., KODAKULANGARA, PADINJATTATHIL, MENAMPALLY,

¶12

MUKUNDAPURAM, P.O. CHAVARA - 691 585.

¶13

4 BINU M.R., MANKEESHAPPADY, AYMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 015.

¶14

5 BINU CHANDRAN B.L., PANDARAVILA VEEDU, THENGUMKODU, K.T. KUNNU P.O., KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 608.

¶15

6 BIJU K., KOTTOOR HOUSE, KODAKKAD, OLAT P.O., KASARAGOD - 671 310.

¶16

7 GOKUL J.M., SUKESINI SADANAM, KIDAYARAKONAM, VENPAKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 123.

¶17

¶18

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶19

8 GOPU M.P., KIZHAKKEVEEDU, TC.18/1292(2), ARAMADA P.O., THRUKKANNAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 032.

¶20

9 HARIKRISHNAN C.V., LAKSHMI NIVAS, PORUVAZHI (NADUVIL), CHATHAKKULAM P.O. - 690 520.

¶21

10 MAHESH M., PUTHENVEETTIL THAZHATHIL, MUTTOM P.O., THUMPAMON, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 502.

¶22

11 NITHINKUMAR S., THEKKEVILA VEEDU, CHILAMPIL - 695 305.

¶23

12 NIKHIL S.P., SANKARAMANGALAM, THAMALLAKKAL P.O., HARIPPADU, ALAPPUZHA - 690 548.

¶24

13 PATHMALAL P., PUTHANVEEDU, KOZHIKKODU, S.V. MARKET P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 573.

¶25

14 PRAVEENKUMAR S., KANNANUNNI, KARIMCHEMPANADU, KADAMPARA, POOZHANADU P.O., KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM - 695 125.

¶26

15 REMESH R., RAJESH BHAVANAM, MARANADU P.O., EZHUKONE, KOLLAM - 691 505.

¶27

16 RANJITH R., KAILAS, MUTHUKATTUKARA, NOORANADU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 504.

¶28

17 SUJITH S., KILITHATTIL VEEDU, VATTAYAM, VELLUMANNADI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 607.

¶29

¶30

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶31

18 SIVAKUMAR S.R., KURUNTHANKUDI VEEDU, AYYAPPA NAGAR, KARALI, PARASSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶32

19 SUNILKUMAR K., ALUMVILA PADITTATHIL, SANDHOSH BHAVANAM,

¶33

KARIMULAKKAL, KOMALLUR P.O.,

¶34

ALAPPUZHA - 690 505.

¶35

20 SREEJITH MOHAN

¶36

GOPALA NIVAS, MEKKOLLA DHANUVACHAPURAM P.O.,

¶37

21 SREERAJ M., SREENILAYAM, PANKONAM, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 577.

¶38

22 SREERAJ U.P,. KANNAMBALLIL MADOM, EEZHAKKADAVU POST, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA - 690 104.

¶39

23 VARUN GOVIND K., MADATHIPARAMBU HOUSE, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR VILLADAM, PIN - 680 631.

¶40

24 VISHNU ARAVIND A., C.S. BHAVAN, KOOTTAPPARA, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 121.

¶41

25 VISHNU R., JAYABHAVAN, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 577.

¶42

26 VIJEESH R., VIJAYA BHAVANAM, KAREELAKKULANGARA P.O., KARUVATTUMKUZHI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 572.

¶43

27 ANOOP A.T., ELAMPAKKATU HOUSE, THANKALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 691.

¶44

¶45

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶46

28 BIJOY CHANDRASEKHARAN P., VANALA PUTHANVEEDU, N.A.D. P.O., ALUVA - 683 563.

¶47

29 GOKUL A.R., KAILASAM, KAMURAKKONAM, KONCHIRA P.O., VEMBAYAM - 695 615.

¶48

30 HARIKRISHNAN M., MOHANA SADANAM, MALAYIL, VELIYAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 540.

¶49

31 PRAVEEN M.K., MEETHALE KONOTH HOUSE, EAST KADIRUR, THALASSERY, KANNUR - 670 642.

¶50

32 PRAMOD A.P., SREENILAYAM, KANNNGODU, VENJARAMOODU P.O.-695 607.

¶51

33 RAJKUMAR S., CHEKKANIYKKAL VEEDU, PURAVOOR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN - 695 304.

¶52

34 RAJANEESH R., RADHA MANDIRAM, VELIYANNOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 543.

¶53

35 ROTHISH G., KUTTUCHAL VEEDU, MUDAKKAL P.O. - 695 103.

¶54

36 SUNILKUMAR S., S.S. NIVAS, ULIYAKKOVIL P.O., KOLLAM - 691 019.

¶55

37 VISHNU DAS V.M., VATTATHUPARAMBIL, KOTTANELLOORE P.O., VELAYANAD - 680 662.

¶56

38 VAISAKHMOHAN M., VAISAKH BHAVAN, AAZHIMALA, PULINKUDY, MULLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 521.

¶57

¶58

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶59

39 VINOD R., THIRUPPATHY BHAVAN, KUMUKUMCHERY, AAVANEESWARAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691 508.

¶60

BY ADV SUO MOTU

¶61

RESPONDENTS:

¶62

1 THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR.

¶63

2 THE SECRETARY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR

¶64

SRI K.P. SUDHEER -STANDING COUNSEL - COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶65

OTHER PRESENT:

¶66

SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.RAMACHANDRAN- AMICUS CURIAE SRI V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR - STANDING COUNSEL - KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD

¶67

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 09.01.2023, ALONG WITH DBP.3/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶68

¶69

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶71

PRESENT

¶72

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶73

¶74

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶75

MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944

¶76

W.P.(C) NO. 4988 OF 2019

¶77

PETITIONER#S:

¶78

1 VAISAKHMOHAN M.

¶79

AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MOHANAN V, VAISAKH BHAVAN, AAZHIMALA, PULINKUDY, MULLOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695521.

¶80

2 VISHNUDAS V M. AGED 34 YEARS, (RANK NO.21 (SC)), VATTATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTANALLUR.P.O., VELAYANAD, THRISSUR - 680662.

¶81

3 PREETHA P., AGED 33 YEARS, (RANK NO.171), THIRUVATHIRA, KAVANAD.P.O., KOLLAM-691003.

¶82

4 ASWATHY R J.

¶83

AGED 34 YEARS, (RANK NO.239), GAYATHRI PARAMUKKU, MEENANKAL, ARYANAD.P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542.

¶84

5 SARATH CHANDRAN B G.*

¶85

AGED 25 YEARS, (RANK NO.65), VELAYUDHAMANGALATHU PUTHAN VEEDU, KANDALA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695512. (DELETED)

¶86

6 PRAVEEN KUMAR S., AGED 25 YEARS, (RANK NO.109), KANNANUNNI, KARIMCHEMBANADU, KADAMBARA, POOZHANADU.P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695125. (DELETED)*

¶87

¶88

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶89

7& RAMJINATH R.,

¶90

AGED 24 YEARS, (RANK NO.158), GANESAM, MELEVILA, KEEZHATTINGAL.P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695101. (DELETED)

¶91

8 SREERAJ M

¶92

AGED 23 YEARS, (RANK NO.132), SREENILAYAM, THRIKOVILVATTOM, MUKHATHALA.P.O., KOLLAM691577.

¶93

9 VINOD R., AGED 35 YEARS, (RANK NO.153), THIRUPATHY BHAVAN, KAMUKUMCHERY, AVANEESWARAM.P.O., KOLLAM-691508.

¶94

10 PRAMOD M P. AGED 28 YEARS, (RANK NO.159), SREE NILAYAM, KANNAMKOODU, VENJARAMOODU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695607.

¶95

11 GOKUL V K., AGED 22 YEARS, (RANK NO.123), KOYIPPALLI, MANNANCHERRY.P.O., ALAPPUZHA -688538.

¶96

12 VISHNU POTTY*

¶97

AGED 30 YEARS, (RANK NO.66), MULLAVELIKONATHU VEEDU, WEST VAYALA.P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691306. (DELETED)

¶98

13 AJEESH V S. AGED 29 YEARS, (RANK NO.260), U S NIVAS, PULIYARATHALA, KARIPPOR.P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695541. (DELETED)*

¶99

14 SREEJITH MOHAN AGED 28 YEARS, (RANK NO.269), GOPALA NIVAS, MEKKOLLA KOLLAYIL, DHANUVACHAPURAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695503.

¶100

¶101

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶102

15 VINODH V., AGED 31 YEARS, (RANK NO.133), KUZHIVILA VEEDU, PANAVILA, NALANCHIRA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695015.

¶103

16 RATHEESH B., AGED 28 YEARS, (RANK NO.130), VAILAPALLY PANAYIL VEEDU, CHENCHERI, NALANCHIRA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695015.

¶104

*PETITIONERS 5,6,7,12 AND 13 ARE DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AS PER ORDER DATED 17/3/21 IN I.A.2/2021 IN WP(C)4988/2019.

¶105

BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.S.ANEESH

¶106

RESPONDENTS:

¶107

1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR - 680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶108

2 SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR-680001.

¶109

3 KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITIMENT BOARD, AYURVEDA COLLEGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶110

BY ADVS. R1& R2 by SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD R3 BY SRI.G.BIJU, SC, KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD

¶111

¶112

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶113

OTHER PRESENT:

¶114

SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC,TDB

¶115

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 09.01.2023, ALONG WITH DBP.50/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶116

¶117

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶119

PRESENT

¶120

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶121

¶122

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶123

MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944

¶124

W.P.(C) NO. 21442 OF 2021

¶125

PETITIONER:

¶126

SRAVAN GOPAL V.S. AGED 25 YEARS

¶127

S/O. VENUGOPALAN.K, KALLUKUTHIVILA VEEDU, VENMAYOOR, NELLIVILA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695523.

¶128

BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR AMRUTHA SANJEEV

¶129

RESPONDENTS:

¶130

1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR-680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶131

2 SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR-680001.

¶132

3 KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD AYURVEDA COLLEGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶133

¶134

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶135

R1 AND R2 BY ADV K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶136

R3 BY SRI.G.BIJU, SC, KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD

¶137

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 09.01.2023, ALONG WITH DBP.50/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶138

¶139

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶141

PRESENT

¶142

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶143

¶144

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶145

MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO. 26778 OF 2021

¶146

PETITIONER:

¶147

SUBIN K. SABU AGED 30 YEARS S/O.SABU K.T, KOCHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, NELLICKAL, KUZHIMATTOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686533.

¶148

BY ADV S.ANEESH

¶149

RESPONDENTS:

¶150

1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR-680001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶151

2 SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND WEST, THRISSUR-680001.

¶152

3 KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD, AYURVEDA COLLEGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 AND R2 BY ADV K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD R3 BY SRI.G.BIJU, SC, KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD

¶153

¶154

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶155

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 09.01.2023, ALONG WITH DBP.50/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶156

¶157

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶158

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶159

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶160

¶161

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944

¶162

D.B.P.NO. 3 OF 2020

¶163

IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.

¶164

PETITIONER:

¶165

K.S.DINESAN AGED 50 YEARS KULANGARA VALAPPIL THEKKUMKARA P O WADAKKANCHERRY - 680 589

¶166

BY SUO MOTU

¶167

RESPONDENT:

¶168

THE SECRETARY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SWARAJ ROUND, N.KURUPPAM, THEKKINKADU, THRISSUR.

¶169

BY ADV K.P SUDHEER,SC FOR CDB

¶170

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 09.01.2023, ALONG WITH DBP.50/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶171

¶172

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶174

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶175

¶176

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944

¶177

D.B.P NO. 81 OF 2019

¶178

IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB

¶179

PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG.

¶180

PETITIONER:

¶181

SUNIL KUMAR.K.S AGED 42 YEARS KANNIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPPARAMBUKAVU, THRIPPUNITHURA - 682 301

¶182

BY SUOMOTU

¶183

RESPONDENT:

¶184

THE SECRETARY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR

¶185

BY ADV SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶186

THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 09.01.2023, ALONG WITH DBP.50/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶187

¶188

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶189

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶190

PRESENT

¶191

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶192

¶193

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶194

MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO. 24181 OF 2021

¶195

PETITIONER:

¶196

SUNIL KUMAR K.S AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN K.A., KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPPARAMBUKAVU ROAD, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301.

¶197

BY ADVS. P.V.JAYACHANDRAN VENUGOPALAN MENON

¶198

RESPONDENTS:

¶199

1 COCHIN DEVASWAM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BUILDING, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶200

2 THE SPECIAL DEVASWAM COMMISSIONER DEVASWAM COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, DEVASWAM BUILDING, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶201

3 THE SECRETARY COCHIN DEVASWAM BOARD, DEVASWAM BUILDING, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶202

BY ADV SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶203

¶204

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶205

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 09.01.2023, ALONG WITH DBP.50/2020 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶206

¶207

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶208

JUDGMENT/ORDER

¶209

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

¶210

The common issue raised in the above DBPs. and the Writ Petitions relates to the recruitment to the post of Kazhakom in the temples under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board and their pay. Since a common issue is raised, this DBPs and the Writ Petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement.

¶211

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020:- This DBP is registered based

¶212

on CDB Report No.38 of 2020 filed by the learned Ombudsman in Complaint Nos.246 and 284 of 2019. Annexure 1 series complaints were filed by the candidates, who were included in the select list published by the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board for appointment to the post of Kazhakom in the temples under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board. They allege that appointments are not made from the select list. Instead, the Cochin Devaswom Board is attempting to regularise those who are working on a temporary basis. Pursuant to the notice issued in Annexure

¶213

¶214

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶215

O1 series of complaints, the Special Devaswom Commissioner filed a reply dated 16.01.2020, stating that, out of the 403 temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board, there are 376 approved posts of Kazhakam which are in the 320 temples. Out of 376 approved posts, 174 are Karaima right. 11 posts, out of the remaining 202 posts, are vacant. The Recruitment Board advised candidates against 4 posts. But those candidates did not join duty. Steps are being taken for making appointments to the 11 posts. In the remaining temples, there are no vacant posts of Kazhakam. In some temples, in connection with certain rituals, appointments are made for the specified work, on an allowance basis. In such cases no post as such is created, as the work is of casual nature, and creating a post and appointing a person on a permanent basis will not be in the interest of the Devaswom. The learned Ombudsman directed the Board to specify the temples in which employees have been engaged on allowance basis and the duration of their engagement. The Secretary of the Board, vide Annexure 3 communication dated 19.08.2020, furnished

¶216

¶217

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶218

the list of temples where employees on allowance basis are continuing. The learned Ombudsman noticed that, in some of the temples, the employees on allowance basis continue for a long period. Since those posts are not created, it cannot be filled up on a permanent basis, from the select list prepared by the Recruitment Board. Since the Board is taking steps for filling up 11 posts, no further relief can be granted in the complaints. In the reply, the Special Devaswom Commissioner pointed out the pendency of W.P.(C)No.4988 of 2019 filed by certain candidates included in the select list for appointment to the post of Kazhakom. Considering the pendency of W.P. (C)No.4988 of 2019, the learned Ombudsman submitted CDB Report No.38 of 2020, based on which this DBP is registered.

¶219

W.P.(C) No.4988 of 2019:- The petitioners are the candidates included in Ext.P1 select list dated 01.12.2018 prepared by the 3^rd respondent Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, for the post of Kazhakam, in the temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board. Validity of Ext.P1 select list is till the publication of a new select list, after the expiry of a minimum

¶220

¶221

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶222

period of one year, or till the expiry of three years, whichever is earlier. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to terminate all casual/daily wage Kazhakam employees working in various temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board and to report those vacancies to the 3^rd respondent Recruitment Board. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to report all NJD vacancies to the 3^rd respondent Recruitment Board forthwith; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent Recruitment Board to immediately advise the candidates against the vacancies reported to it, from Ext.P1 select list.

¶223

3.1. Going by the averments in the writ petition, from Ext.P1 select list, 60 candidates were advised on 04.12.2018. A large number of vacancies of Kazhakam in various temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board exists, but those vacancies are not being reported to the 3^rd respondent Recruitment Board, for the reason that casual/daily wage hands are

¶224

¶225

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶226

occupying those posts. In the writ petition, the petitioners have furnished a consolidated list of temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board in which casual/daily wage Kazhakam employees are working. According to the petitioners, 126 casual/daily Wage Kazhakam employees are working in the temples under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board. Among the 60 candidates advised on 04.12.2018, 8 remain as NJD vacancies. Even those vacancies are not being reported to the 3^rd respondent Recruitment Board. In the writ petition, the petitioners would place reliance on Ext.P2 judgment dated 04.02.2019 in Writ Appeal No.2248 of 2018 and connected cases, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that provisional employees cannot be permitted to cling on much to the prejudice of the PSC advisees. By Ext.P2 judgement, the Division Bench directed the termination of empanelled conductors working in KSRTC so as to accommodate the PSC hands.

¶227

3.2. On 26.02.2019, when this writ petition came up for

¶228

admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The

¶229

¶230

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶231

respective Standing Counsel took notice for respondents 1, 2 and 3. The learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of the communication dated 25.02.2019 addressed to the 3^rd respondent Recruitment Board, whereby the availability of 8 NJD vacancies was reported to the Board with a request to take further action.

¶232

3.3. On 12.06.2019, a statement has been filed by the 3^rd respondent Recruitment Board, wherein it is stated that the 2^nd respondent reported 60 vacancies of Kazhakam. The Recruitment Board issued a notification inviting applications for the post on 28.03.2018 as Category No.10/2018 with the last date of receipt of application as 24.08.2018. Direct recruitment is the method of appointment. A total of 2013 applications were received against the 60 notified vacancies. The Recruitment Board, after conducting a written test and interview, published the select list on 01.12.2018, and advised 60 candidates for appointment from that select list on 04.12.2018, in accordance with the rules of reservation and

¶233

¶234

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶235

rotation. Later, the 1^st respondent Board reported 8 NJD vacancies on 25.02.2019 and Recruitment Board advised candidates against those vacancies, vide Ext.R3(a) advice. In the statement, it is stated that, it is the duty of respondents 1 and 2 to report all the vacancies to the Recruitment Board, if provisional hands are working against those posts. The candidates included in the select list will be advised according to the rules of reservation and rotation as and when sufficient number of vacancies are reported by the Cochin Devaswom Board.

¶236

3.4. On 22.07.2019, when this writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board submitted that all available vacancies, which are liable to be reported to the Recruitment Board, will be reported. It was also stated that at present 39 daily wage employees are working against permanent Kazhakam posts and that steps are being taken to report the available vacancies to the Recruitment Board. By the said order, the respondents were directed to take steps to report all available

¶237

¶238

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶239

vacancies. On 13.08.2019, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom submitted that the submission made on the previous posting date that there are 39 daily wage employees working against permanent Kazhakam post was a mistake and there are, as a matter of fact, 49 vacancies available for reporting to the Recruitment Board.

¶240

3.5. The 1^st respondent Board has filed a counter affidavit on 27.01.2020, wherein it is stated that 60 candidates included in Ext.P1 select list were advised on 04.12.2018. By Ext.R1(a) communication dated 24.08.2019, 49 vacancy of Kazhakam in the temples under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board were reported to the 3^rd respondent Recruitment Board. Thus, altogether 109 vacancies were reported to the 3^rd respondent. While so, a committee was constituted by the Devaswom Board to ascertain the staff strength of the temple employees and the committee submitted a report, wherein it is stated that, the total number of posts of Kazhakam in Cochin Devaswom Board is 376. Out of the 376 posts of Kazhakam, 174 posts

¶241

¶242

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶243

belong to Karaima employees. The remaining 202 posts are available in the general category. At present, 11 posts are lying vacant and steps are being taken to report those vacancies to the Recruitment Board. A copy of the report dated 16.01.2020 submitted by the Special Devaswom Commissioner before the learned Ombudsman is produced along with the said counter affidavit as Ext.R1(b).

¶244

3.6. On 28.01.2020 the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit, wherein it is stated that as per the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, the total number of posts of Kazhakam is 376 and 174 posts belong to Karaima employees and the remaining 202 posts available in the general category. As per the information received by them under the RTI Act, there are 393 Kazhakam posts among which 139 are permanent employees, 179 belong to Karaima employees and 75 temporary/daily wagers. True copies of the letter dated 29.07.2019 under RTI Act and the reply given by the State Public Information Officer attached to the office of the 1^st respondent are produced along with the reply affidavit as

¶245

¶246

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶247

Exts.P3 and P4 respectively. It is also stated that in Chottanikkara Temple there are only two Karaima Kazhakam employees working. The same is a false statement as the Chottanikkara Group temples include Melekkavu, Keehkavu and Siva and Ayyappa sub temples. There are separate priests for these four temples and the reply that the Kazhakam work of all these four temples are being managed by two Karaima employees is beyond imagination. Further, it is seen that there are nine temporary employees under Tripunithura Group, 29 temporary hands under Thiruvilwamala Group, 26 temporary hands under Thiruvanchikulam Group and 19 temporary hands under Thrissur Group. thus several major temples are being manned by temporary employees.

¶248

3.7. On 12.06.2020, the 1^st respondent has filed an

¶249

additional counter affidavit wherein contentions of the petitioners based on Exts.P3 and P4 documents are denied. It is also submitted that Ext.P4 reply was given on 26.09.2019 prior to the submission of the staff strength study report. It is also stated that the reply affidavit along with the documents

¶250

¶251

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶252

produced by the petitioners were forwarded to the Board and the Board after considering the entire aspects had passed order on M4.11109/2017 dated 19.03.2020. The said order and the order referred to therein are Exts.R1(c) and (d) respectively.

¶253

3.8. On 25.06.2020, an additional reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners to the additional counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent. In the said reply affidavit, it is stated that the contention of the 1^st respondent allowance employees are engaged in 14 Temples since in those temples the workload is very limited and the income derived is very low is incorrect. The details of income generated from those 14 Temples were received by one of the petitioners under RTI Act and the same is Ext.P5. Those 14 temples have high revenues and therefore, the stand of the 1^st respondent that only allowance employees can be engaged in those temples is absolutely false. In the original counter affidavit of the 1^st respondent it is stated that among 403 temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board, the most revenue generating

¶254

¶255

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶256

temples are Chottanikkara, Kodungallur and Thriprayar. Therefore, the statement of the 1^st respondent that even in Kodungallur Sree Bhagavathy Devaswom, there is only an allowance employee working as Kazhakam is nothing but an altogether 30 substantive vacancies remain to be filled up before the expiry of Ext.P1 select list.

¶257

3.9. The 1^st respondent Devaswom Board has filed I.A.No.5 of 2020 seeking an order to accept Ext.R1(e), which is the letter dated 09.11.2020 whereby, the Devaswom Board has reported another 14 vacancies to the 3^rd respondent, as an additional document.

¶258

3.10 Along with the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1 of 2021, which is an application filed by the petitioners seeking an order to direct respondents 1 and 2 to report the existing 17 vacancies and 3 anticipated vacancies of Kazhakam to the 3^rd respondent, it is stated that during the pendency of this writ petition, on the basis of various interim orders, certain vacancies were reported and candidates included in Ext.P1 select list were appointed. Consequently, petitioners 5, 6, 7, 12

¶259

¶260

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶261

and 13 were appointed. In the said affidavit, the petitioners have furnished the details of further vacancies existing that they received through various replies under the RTI Act. Since petitioners 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 were already got appointment, I.A.No.2 of 2021 have been filed seeking an order to delete those petitioners from the party array.

¶262

3.11 On 01.11.2021, a statement has been filed by the 1^st respondent producing therewith Annexure R1(a), which is a copy of the Order No.M4.1109/2017 dated 16.10.2021 issued by the Special Devaswom Commissioner, to which the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 06.11.2021 producing therewith Exts.P6 to P10(a).

¶263

3.12 As per order dated 25.11.2022, the Cochin Devaswom Board was directed to provisionally report nine vacancies pointed out in Annexure R1(g) with a caveat that the Recruitment Board need not advise the eligible candidates for appointment for the time being. In compliance with the said direction, the vacancies were reported to the recruitment Board.

¶264

¶265

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶266

3.13 In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners the Cochin Devaswom Board was directed to file an affidavit containing the details of the persons continuing in the Temples of the Board on allowance basis, the period of their engagement and also the monthly allowance being paid. An affidavit containing those details was submitted by the Devaswom Board.

¶267

W.P.(C) Nos.21442 and 26778 of 2021:- These Writ Petitions were also filed by candidates included in the select list dated 01.12.2018 prepared by the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board for appointment to the post of Kazhakom in the Temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board. Respective petitioners in these Writ Petitions raised contentions similar to those in W.P.(C) No.4988 of 2019.

¶268

D.B.P.No.3 of 2020:- The learned Ombudsman for

¶269

the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards received two complaints that more than 97 persons were appointed in various offices under the Cochin Devaswom Board without complying with the rules and regulations and also without

¶270

¶271

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶272

getting sanction from this Court. The complainants made a request to take urgent steps for preventing such unauthorised appointments and to give necessary instructions to make appointments in the Temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board only in a transparent manner.

¶273

5.1 The learned Ombudsman enquired into the matter. In the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board it was submitted that all the regular vacancies are filled only from the select list prepared by the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board. The appointments in question were in respect of the post of casual nature and the appointment to the said post was on a minimum allowance basis. On account of the financial stringency, the Board is unable to engage regular hands in such posts. It is not also possible to appoint candidates selected through employment exchange or by such other means in such posts.

¶274

5.2 The learned Ombudsman after considering the matter in detail submitted that the method of appointment to the posts in question has not been divulged by the Devaswom

¶275

¶276

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶277

Board. It is accordingly suggested to give appropriate directions to the Cochin Devaswom Board for codifying the procedure for appointment of candidates against the posts which carry only allowances.

¶278

D.B.P.No.81 of 2019:- This D.B.P. was initiated on the basis of CDB Report No.60 of 2019 which was submitted by the learned Ombudsman in complaint No.65 of 2019. The complainant is a daily wage employee working in Chakkamkulangara Temple for more than 10 years. The daily wages being paid to him is Rs.275/-. Although there have been repeated requests for revising the daily wages and also to regularise the persons put in long years of service on temporary basis, the Board has not taken any steps in the matter. Espousing the said grievances, Annexure A1 complaint was submitted before the learned Ombudsman.

¶279

6.1 The Cochin Devaswom Board filed an affidavit stating that a few persons, who put in service of two years as on 31.03.2009 were made permanent as per the order dated 31.03.2012. However, thereafter, every regular appointment

¶280

¶281

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶282

is being done through the Recruitment Board. It was further submitted that a policy decision in the matter of regularisation of the daily wage employees was taken by the Board. As regards the revision of daily wages of employees, a report from the Finance and Accounts Officer was called for and a decision in that matter would be taken without delay. The learned Ombudsman on opining that the daily wage of Rs.275/- being paid is too low for a person to survive, submitted the report suggesting that necessary directions to the Board in the matter is highly essential.

¶283

W.P.(C) No.24181 of 2021:- This Writ Petition is

¶284

filed with respect to the subject matter in D.B.P.No.81 of 2019 and the reliefs sought are to quash Et.P10 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled for regularisation as Adichuthali/ Nadaaval/Pathram theppu along with similarly situated employees mentioned in Ext.P7. The petitioner claims that he was appointed on daily wages as Adichu Thali/Nadakkaval as per Ext.P1 in the year 2011 and he submitted a representation on 25.06.2012 to regularise his services, which

¶285

¶286

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶287

is Ext.P2. He was subjected to an interview also. While performing his duty, he was attacked by an intoxicated person resulting him to undergo continuous treatment. He had to spend a huge amount on treatment expenses. In such circumstances, he submitted Ext.P4 representation to increase

¶288

the daily wages. A complaint was submitted before the learned Ombudsman in this regard as well. Since his representations were not considered, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.15017 of 2020, which was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgement dated 16.11.2020. He was informed that as and when a decision is taken to regularise daily wage employees, the application of the petitioner will also be considered. Pointing out the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner seeks the reliefs mentioned above.

¶289

A statement was filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent. The contentions are that regarding regularisation, a decision was taken by the Board as per Ext.R1(a), whereby it was decided to regularise services of Adichu Thali (Sweeper), who had completed two years service as on

¶290

¶291

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶292

31.12.2019. But later, considering the financial stringency, the Board has cancelled the said decision and Ext.R1(b) order was issued in that regard on 23.11.2020. Consequent to that, Ext.P10 order was issued informing the petitioner that on whenever a decision to regularise the services of daily wage employees is taken, the representation of the petitioner will be considered. As regards the enhancement of wages, an affidavit was filed by the Board in D.B.P.No.81 of 2019 stating that on getting the report of the Finance and Accounts Officer, the Board has taken a decision vide Ext.R1(a). The Board decided that wage hike could not immediately be done, but the Board will take a decision in due course.

¶293

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the respective Writ Petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board, the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Recruitment Board and the learned Amicus Curiae for the learned Ombudsman.

¶294

¶295

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶296

The common contention of the petitioners in D.B.P No 50 of 2020, W.P.(C) Nos. 4988 of 2019, 21442 of 2021 and 26778 of 2021 is that despite publishing of select list dated 01.12.2018 of candidates for appointment of Kazhakam, the Cochin Devaswom Board did not report all the available vacancies to the Devaswom Recruitment Board. It is contended that on account of such an evasive attitude of the Board, many of the candidates included in the select list did not get appointment, which they are legally entitled to. This Court as per successive orders directed the Cochin Devaswom Board to report all the available vacancies to the Recruitment Board and in compliance of such directions, the vacancies arose from time to time during the currency of the select list were reported. The total number of posts of Kazhakam under Cochin Devaswom Board is 376, out of which 174 posts are of Karaima employees. Only against the vacancies arising among the remaining 202 posts there can be appointment from the select list prepared by the Recruitment Board. The select list dated 01.12.2018 was prepared against notification of 60

¶297

¶298

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶299

available vacancies. Apart from the said 60 vacancies, all the 49 vacancies arose in respect of the regular posts were reported and the appointments were made. Regarding that fact, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would not have any dispute now.

¶300

Validity of the select list dated 01.12.2018 is three years from the date of publication or till a new list is published, whichever is earlier. Indisputably, the said list expired on 30.11.2021 on elapsing 3 years from the date of its publication. In such circumstances, the relief claimed by the petitioners to appoint the candidates from the select list dated 01.12.2018 against the vacancies that arise thereafter cannot be entertained. That relief has become infructuous. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even while such a select list is available, the Board has been making appointments at its whims and fancies against the allowance vacancies, which is illegal.

¶301

¶302

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶303

The learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board would submit in that regard that casual employees on daily wages or allowances are alone appointed otherwise than from the select list prepared by the Devaswom Recruitment Board. Such casual vacancies are kept as such since the work is menial and the income derived from the Temples where such employees are working is too meagre and insufficient to afford regular posts.

¶304

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the other hand, would submit that concerning many of the Temples such a stand taken by the Devaswom Board is incorrect and even in Temples having good income, various posts of Kazhakam are kept casual, thereby denying appointment to the candidates included in the select list and prospective employees. Whether a particular post is to be regularised or not is a matter to be decided by the Devaswom Board on taking into account various aspects, including the income with which the Board to meet the expenses of such employees. Therefore, we are not proposing to issue any direction in that regard.

¶305

¶306

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶307

In terms of the direction of this Court dated 16.09.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board filed an affidavit dated 22.10.2022 producing therewith the details of employees continuing on allowance basis and the period of their engagement. The monthly allowance being paid also has been stated. Ext.R1(e) is the details so submitted.

¶308

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the candidates remaining in the select list dated 01.12.2018 are prepared to work in the post of casual or temporary nature, which carries only daily wages or allowance and therefore there may be a direction to the Board to appoint those persons against available and arising vacancies of daily wage and allowance employees. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side in the light of the law laid down by this Court in

¶309

Biju.C.V v. Jashna.K.J and others [2021(2) KHC 550] ,

¶310

we are of the view that the said submission has merits.

¶311

¶312

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶313

The grievance put forward by the petitioner in D.B.P.No.81 of 2020 is that appointments in the casual vacancies of Kazhakam and similar posts are being made without following any regulations or directions, and without obtaining permission from this Court. The learned Ombudsman reported also that there has not been a transparent methodology for appointing employees against the casual vacancies, which carries only wages or allowances. The stand of the Cochin Devaswom Board is that appointment of candidates in the casual vacancy posts selection of candidates for appointment through employment exchange or such other mode is not feasible, especially considering the financial position of the Board. Such an explanation is not satisfactory. We are of the view that when appointments are made by the Cochin Devaswom Board, which is a statutory body holding the position of a Trustee of the Deities, even against casual posts on daily wages or allowances there shall be transparency. There shall be enough measures to avoid any kind of arbitrariness or bias in the process of such appointments.

¶314

¶315

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶316

Section 73A of The Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 deals with duties of the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv), namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative staff and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu Religious Institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in major temples for the devotees.

¶317

In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [(1979) 2 SCC 65] , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and

¶318

¶319

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶320

execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage.

¶321

In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom

¶322

Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to

¶323

¶324

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶325

prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.

¶326

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions the obligation of the Board to act with utmost bona fides in the matters of appointments need not be restated. We notice that the Board had issued on 05.07.2021 Annexure R1(b) produced in D.B.P.No. 81 of 2021 to streamline appointments against casual posts carrying daily wage or allowance. In such circumstances we direct that the Board and its officials shall scrupulously follow the guidelines contained in Annexure R1(b) dated 05.07.2021. We make it clear that for ensuring transparency in the process of selection, suitability and merits of the candidates shall be assessed through an appropriate method before making selection of the candidates.

¶327

As pointed out above, the period of select list dated 01.12.2018 for the appointment of Kazhakam has

¶328

¶329

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶330

already expired. New list is not yet published. In such circumstances, candidates included in the said select list, who did not get an appointment, shall be given priority while making appointments against such daily wage/casual posts. We therefore direct that whenever a vacancy of a post of daily wage/casual posts carrying allowance arise before publishing a new select list of candidates for appointments to the post of Kazhakam, the candidates included in the select list dated 01.12.2018 shall be given an option and if no such person opts for getting an appointment for a period of below 179 days only the process of selection as stated above need be resorted to.

¶331

In the matter of regularisation of employees working on daily wage or allowances and revision of wages no further direction is required in the light of the statement filed by the Devaswom Board in W.P(c).No. 24181 of 2021 and Ext.R1(a) produced in DBP No.81 of 2019.

¶332

With the aforesaid directions, these D.B.Ps. and

¶333

¶334

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶335

Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶336

Sd/-

¶337

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶338

Sd/-

¶339

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶340

dkr

¶341

¶342

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶343

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4988/2019

¶344

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶345

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST ISSUED AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 1.12.2018 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶346

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2283 OF 2018 AND CON.CASES DT. 4.2.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.7.2019 UNDER RTI ACT SUBMITTED BY THE 16TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.05.2020 UNDER RTI ACT SUBMITTED BY THE 16TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST MADE BY THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 16/12/2020 BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, PARAKKOTTUKAVU DEVASWOM. EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 03/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER, PARAKOTTU DEVASWOM. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 17/09/2021 BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, THIRUVILWAMALA GROUP. EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 06/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, THIRUVILWAMALA GROUP.

¶347

¶348

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶349

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 01/01/2021 BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, THRISSUR GROUP. EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 05/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER, THRISSUR GROUP. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF BOARD ORDER M4.16056/2018 DATED 21/08/2020. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST UNDER RTI MADE BY THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 18/10/2021 BEFORE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ANTHIKKAD DEVASWOM. EXHIBIT P10(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER, ANTHIKKD DEVASWOM.

¶350

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶351

ANNEXURE R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.112/RECT/ KDRB/2018 DATED 06.03.2019 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD.

¶352

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO-M411109/2017 DATED 24.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶353

EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NOM4.11109/2017 DATED 16.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY SPECIAL THE OMBUDSMAN FOR COCHIN & TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD. EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M4.11109/2017 DATED 19.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.

¶354

¶355

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶356

EXHIBIT R1(D)

¶357

TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M4.11109/2017 DATED 01.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.

¶358

EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 09.11.2020 ISSUED BY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶359

EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M4.1109/2017 DATED 16.10.2021 ISSUED BY SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.

¶360

¶361

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶362

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21442/2021

¶363

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶364

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST ISSUED AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED 01.12.2018 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST MADE BY ONE OF THE CANDIDATE IN EXHIBIT P1 DATED 18.10.2021 BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ANTHIKKAD DEVASWOM.

¶365

EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 23.10.2021 GIVEN BY JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER, ANTHIKKAD DEVASWOM.

¶366

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 17.06.2021 SUBMITTED BY ONE OF THE CANDIDATES INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT P1 SELECT LIST BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, THRISSUR GROUP.

¶367

EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 03.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER, THRISSUR GROUP.

¶368

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 06.02.2021 MADE BY ONE OF THE CANDIDATES IN EXHIBIT P1 RANKED LIST.

¶369

EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 29.03.2021 ISSUED BY INFORMATION OFFICER, THRISSUR GROUP. EXHIBIT P4(B) TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.03.2021 ISSUED BY INFORMATION OFFICER, TRIPUNITHURA GROUP.

¶370

¶371

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶372

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶373

ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M4.11109/2017 DATED 01.11.2021 ISSUED BY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER. ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M4.11109/2017 DATED 10.11.2021 ISSUED BY COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.

¶374

¶375

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶376

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26778/2021

¶377

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶378

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY	OF NOTIFICATION	DATED
	28.03.2018 RESPONDENT.	ISSUED BY THE	3RD
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF PER NOTIFICA THE 3RD RESPO	THE SELECT LIST ISSU TION DATED 01.12.20 NDENT.	ED AS 18 BY
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF 05.10.2021	QUERY UNDER RTI ACT SUBMITTED TO	DATED THE
	INFORMATION 1ST RESPONDEN	OFFICER ATTACHED TO T.	THE
EXHIBIT P3(A)	TRUE COPY O	F REPLY DATED 05.11	.2021
	ISSUED BY	THE INFORMATION OF	FICER
	ATTACHED TO RESPONDENT.	THE OFFICE OF THE	1ST
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF 18.10.2021	QUERY UNDER RTI ACT SUBMITTED TO	DATED THE
	INFORMATION TANNIKUDAM DE	OFFICER ATTACHED VASWOM.	TO
EXHIBIT P4(A)	TRUE COPY O	F REPLY DATED 22.10	.2021
	ISSUED BY	THE INFORMATION OF	FICER
	ATTACHED TO T	ANNIKUDAM DEVASWOM.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF	QUERY UNDER RTI ACT	DATED
	08.09.2021	SUBMITTED TO	THE
	INFORMATION THIRUVANCHIKU	OFFICER ATTACHED LAM GROUP.	TO
EXHIBIT P5(A)	TRUE COPY O	F REPLY DATED 25.10	.2021
	ISSUED BY	THE INFORMATION OF	FICER
	ATTACHED GROUP.	TO THIRUVANCHI	KULAM

¶379

¶380

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶381

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF QUERY UNDER RTI ACT DATED 25.09.2021 SUBMITTED TO INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO PANANGATUKARA DEVASWOM.

¶382

EXHIBIT P6(A)

¶383

TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 11.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO PANANGATUKARA DEVASWOM.

¶384

EXHIBIT P7

¶385

TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04.02.2014.

¶386

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶387

EXHIBIT R1A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.M4.11109/2017 DATED 29.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶388

EXHIBIT R1B TRUE COPY OF ORDER NJO.M4.15566/2021 DATED 27.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶389

EXHIBIT R1C

¶390

TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M4.11109/2017 DATED 04.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶391

¶392

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶393

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24181/2021

¶394

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶395

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M4.11036/11 DATED 28.10.11 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶396

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.6.12 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶397

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶398

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.7.15 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶399

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.4.19 BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN, TRAVANCORE/COCHIN DEVASWAM BOARD, ERNAKULAM.

¶400

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON M4.11142/18 DATED 27.5.19 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶401

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO.A2-A1-878/2020 DATED 16.10.20 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWAM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVILWAMALA GROUP. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶402

¶403

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

¶404

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.25017/2020 DATED 16.11.2020.

¶405

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON M49678/2020 DATED 14.9.2021.

¶406

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶407

ANNEXURE R1A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 11.12.2019 IN WPC 29657/2019 PASSED BY THIS COURT. ANNEXURE R1B TRUE COPY OF M4.14952/2019 DATED 23.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶408

¶409

D.B.P.No.50 of 2020 & con.cases

Vaisakhmohan M. v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaisakhmohan M. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobha Prakash Vs O N Satheeshan

M.P.Sangeetha Vs Subhash P.

R.Jayarajan, Vs State of Kerala

Ragesh Menon Vs Salini Sreedhar

Suo Motu Vs the State of Kerala

K.S.Dinesan Vs the Secretary