G.H.Biju vs The Travancore Devaswom Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 2366 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

     THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.15905 OF 2020(K)


PETITIONER:

               G.H.BIJU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. HARIHARA SHARMA ,
               VADAKKE MADOM HOUSE, KAPPIL P O, EDAVA VILLAGE,
               VARKALA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695311.

               SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
               SRI.M.KIRANLAL
               SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
               SRI.T.S.SARATH
               SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
               NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
               DISTRICT, 695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      2        THE SECRETARY
               TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR PO,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695003.

      3        THE COMMISSIONER
               TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,
               KOWDIAR P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695003.

      4        THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
               ULLOOR GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695001.

      5        THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
               VARKALA GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT -695141.

      6        THE SUB GROUP OFFICER,
               SUB GROUP OF KAPPIL, VARKALA GROUP, TRAVANCORE
               DEVASWOM BOARD, KAPPIL P O, EDAVA, VARKALA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695311.

      7        G. BIJU NAMPOOTHIRI,
               S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAMPOOTHIRI, NEELAMENA ILLAM @
               POURNAMI NIVAS, BHOOTHAKULAM PO, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM
               DISTRICT-691302.
 WP(C).No.15905 OF 2020(K)

                                    2



        8        N. JAYAKRISHNAN
                 NOW WORKING AS SANTHI VISHNU NADA DEVASWOM,
                 AIYROOR, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695310, AND
                 RESIDING AT NARAYANEEYAM, CHIRAYANKIL P O,
                 CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695305.

                 SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN, SC.
                 SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.15905 OF 2020(K)

                                          3


                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of January 2021

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning

Ext.P4 proceedings of the Commissioner of the Travancore

Devaswom Board (TDB for short), as per which, he has been

transferred to the Ulloor Group from Varkala, saying that the

latter group does not have sufficient vacancies to

accommodate him and the seventh respondent.

2. The petitioner says that, as is evident from Ext.P4

itself, he was transferred from Neyyattinkara to Varkala Group

a few days earlier, but that through the said order, he has been

further directed to be transferred to the Ulloor Group. The

petitioner thus alleges that Ext.P4 is illegal and unlawful and

therefore, prays that the same be set aside and that his

transfer to Ulloor Group be interdicted.

3. Sri.Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, expatiated the contentions of his client by saying

that, in fact, Ext.P4 has been issued solely to accommodate the

8th respondent in the Varkala Group, even though he is not

eligible to be so accommodated. He pointed out that, as is

clear from Exts.P5 and P6, the said respondent has already WP(C).No.15905 OF 2020(K)

been transferred to Varkala Group but that it is only enable

him to continue in the Varkala group that Ext.P4 has been

issued. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P4 be set

aside.

4. In response, the learned standing counsel for the TDB,

Sri.C.K.Pavithran, submitted that the controversy in issue has

arisen only because, originally there were 14 Sub Groups

under the Varkala Group but, due to an administrative

exercise, four Sub Groups out of it has been shifted to the

Ulloor Group. He submitted that, therefore, one of the two

vacancies earlier available in the Varkala Group has been

shifted to Ulloor Group and that Ext.P4 order was only a

necessary corollary. He, therefore, prayed that this writ

petition be dismissed.

5. Smt.V.A.Mini, learned counsel appearing for

respondents 7 and 8, refuted the submissions of Sri.Manu

Ramachandran made on behalf of the petitioner, by saying that

both Exts.P5 and P6 orders were issued in favour of the 8 th

respondent much before the general transfer have taken place.

She pointed out that Exts.P5 and P6 were issued in June,

2020 while the general transfer took place only in July, 2020; WP(C).No.15905 OF 2020(K)

She then added that, presumably on account of the interim

order granted by this Court in this case, the TDB thereafter,

issued an order transferring the 8 th respondent to the Ulloor

Group and that he has, therefore, preferred an appeal before

the said Board; adding that he has also secured a judgment in

W.P.(C) No.18530/2020 directing that the said appeal be taken

up and disposed of. She, therefore, prays that this writ

petition be dismissed.

6. I have examined the afore submissions and have also

called for and examined a copy of the judgment in W.P.(C)

No.18530/2020.

7. The judgment afore referred has been delivered in the

writ petition filed by the 8th respondent herein, but none of the

other party respondents in this case has been arrayed therein.

The prayer made in that writ petition was that the 8 th

respondent's statutory appeal be directed to be taken up and

disposed of; and this was so directed by this Court with the

consent of Sri.C.K.Pavithran, the learned standing counsel for

the TDB.

8. However, what is relevant in this case is that the 8 th

respondent's transfer to Ulloor had been ordered by the TDB WP(C).No.15905 OF 2020(K)

consequent to the interim order granted in this case. Through

the interim order grated on 11.08.2020, I had directed that the

petitioner herein will not be relieved based on Ext.P4 and

obviously therefore, he and the 7 th respondent continued in

Varkala. This, resultantly led the TDB to issue orders

transferring the 8th respondent to the Ulloor Group and it is

against this, that he has preferred a statutory appeal.

9. Therefore, the real question is not whether the 8 th

respondent is entitled to file a staturoy appeal against his

transfer or otherwise but as to how the interests of the rival

parties will have to be modulated in terms of their seniority

and their entitlement to be retained in Varkala. This is

important because all the three candidates, namely the

petitioner and respondents 7 and 8, want to continue in the

Varkala Group, while the Board says there is only one vacancy

left for accommodation, if the 8 th respondent is allowed to

continue therein.

10. Ineluctably thus, this requires the Board to now look

into all the aspects, including as to the entitlement of the

candidates in question to be retained at Varkala, since none of

them are now willing to go to the Ulloor Sub Group. WP(C).No.15905 OF 2020(K)

11. As I have said above, the 8 th respondent appears to

have filed a statutory appeal before the TDB; however, I am of

the view that such an appeal ought not to have been filed since

the transfer of the 8th respondent was consequent to an interim

order of this Court. The 8 th respondent, being a party in this

case, ought to have approached this Court in this writ petition

seeking orders, rather than have filed W.P.(C) No.18530/2020,

without arraying any of the other parties therein.

12. I am, therefore, of the view that the Board must now

reconsider the whole matter adverting to the statutory appeal

filed by the 8th respondent also and take a final decision as to

who among the three candidates will have to be retained at

Varkala and who will have to go to Ulloor, taking note of their

claims and their dialectical contentions.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside

Ext.P4; with a consequential direction to the competent

Authority of the TDB to hear the petitioner and respondents 7

and 8 and to take a final decision, adverting to the statutory

appeal stated to have been filed by the 8 th respondent, but

treating it more as a representation than an appeal - either

physically or through video conferencing - thus culminating in WP(C).No.15905 OF 2020(K)

an appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as is

possible.

Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is

completed and the Board issues a fresh order, the status quo

with respect to the petitioner and respondents 7 and 8 as

available today will continue.

                                         Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    stu                                           JUDGE
 WP(C).No.15905 OF 2020(K)





                                APPENDIX
    PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

    EXHIBIT P1         THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S

APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 03.03.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL TRANSFER LIST OF FULL TIME SHANTHIS FOR INTER-GROUP TRANSFER VIDE ROC NO.08/20/S DATED 05.06.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL TRANSFER LIST OF FULL TIME SHANTHI'S FOR INTER-GROUP TRANSFER VIDE, ROC NO.08/20/S DATED 24.07.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE ROC 8/20/S DATED 31.07.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1204 DATED 24.06.2020 OF 5TH RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 25.06.2020 OF 8TH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.07.2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.08.2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 20/08/2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFOE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & 5