Allowed

Jithesh.K, v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Kerala HC3 Jun 2024WP(C)/19881/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order quashing the petitioner's appointment as a clerk. Finding no hearing conducted despite a notice, the Court set aside the order, allowed the petitioner to continue in service, and directed a fresh opportunity for objection and personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Ext.P7 order; direction to afford opportunity of objection and personal hearing; petitioner allowed to continue in post.

Jithesh.K, Vs Malabar Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 19881 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JITHESH.K, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. HARIKRISHNAN, AGED KANHIRATHINKAL HOUSE, ELAMBULASSERY PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT -, PIN - 678595 BY ADV K.MOHANAKANNAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 673003

¶10

2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT -, PIN - 673003

¶11

3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD , OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALAKKAD -, PIN - 678013

¶12

4 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NALUSSERI BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, ELAMBULASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT -, PIN - 678595

¶13

5 THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES, NALUSSERI BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM, ELAMBULASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT -, PIN - 678595

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SC SMT RANJANIE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 19881/2024

-2-

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 3^rd day of June 2024)

¶21

Ext.P1 notification was issued to the post of clerk on

¶22

15/09/2023 in Sree Nalusseri Bhagavathy Devaswom. Pursuant

¶23

to which, Ext.P1(a) rank list was brought into existence. The petitioner is the 2^nd rank holder. Thereafter, the 1^st rank holder, one Sarath C. was appointed on 01/11/2023 as per the

¶24

decision of the trustee board. When a retirement vacancy

¶25

arose on 31/10/2023, the petitioner requested the 4^th

¶26

respondent to appoint him. Since his request was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.37870/2023, and this Court directed the Executive Officer

¶27

to take a decision on the representation. Thereafter, the

¶28

petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 proceedings dated

¶29

WPC 19881/2024

¶30

-3-

¶31

22/01/2024, whereby the petitioner was appointed as a clerk

¶32

in the temple.

¶33

The petitioner received Ext.P6 dated 10/05/2024 hearing notice from the Commissioner to appear on 22/05/2024 for a hearing at 2 pm. The petitioner appeared

¶34

on that day and prayed for time to file an objection. But within two days thereafter, Ext.P7 order was passed, setting aside the appointment order given to the petitioner on 22/01/2024 and directing fresh notification for appointment to

¶35

the post of clerk. The petitioner, being aggrieved by Ext.P7,

¶36

has approached this Court.

¶37

Smt. Ranjanie, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board, submits that when the proposal

¶38

for ratification was sent to the Commissioner, taking note of

¶39

WPC 19881/2024

¶40

clause 6 of Ext.P8, which states that once the sole vacancy is

¶41

filled up, the rank list ceases to exist. Any further vacancy can be filled out only through a fresh notification and selection. The Executive Officer has made the appointment on

¶42

the premises that the list has a validity of six months as per

¶43

the decision of the trustee board dated 27/10/2023.

¶44

Sri. K.Mohanakannan, the counsel for the petitioner,

¶45

vehemently argues that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file a written objection, and no hearing was conducted; therefore, Ext.P7 was passed, violating all principles of natural justice.

¶46

Taking note of the hearing date as 22/05/2024, and also Ext.P7 order dated 25/05/2024, I am sure that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to file objection and

¶47

WPC 19881/2024

¶48

no hearing as conducted. Ext.P7 order was passed two days

¶49

after the date of first appearance. Therefore, I have no hesitation to set aside Ext.P7.

¶50

In the result, Ext.P7 stands quashed. The second respondent is directed to afford the petitioner an opportunity

¶51

to file an objection, and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing, pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until such time, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the post where he is working. The petitioner's challenge against Ext.P8 is left open.

¶52

The writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

WPC 19881/2024

-6-

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT DATED 15-9-2023
Exhibit P1(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27/10/2023
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE TRUSTEE BOARD DATED 27/10/2023
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11/11/2023
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION(C) 37870/2023 DATED 22-12-2023
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTED BY ORDER NO.NBD/01/2024 DATED 22-1-2024 ISSUED BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER DATED 10-5- 2024
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2 ND RESPONDENT NO.J5 2800/2024/MDB DATED 25-5-2024
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.J8 7347/2010/MDB DATED 15-10-2010 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER

Jithesh.K, v. Malabar Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jithesh.K, v. Malabar 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

Shaji M.K. Vs the High Court of Kerala,Ernakulam

Sujala.S. Kumari Vs State of Kerala

Jeenaa Damodar Panickar Vs Union of India

C v Mathew Vs Kerala Water Authority

Subrahmanya.B Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

Byju Prabhakar Vs 1. Union of India