Mayadevi K.S vs T.Breeja Kumari
2021 Latest Caselaw 15711 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
           FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
                       CON.CASE(C) NO. 1081 OF 2021
         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10135/2021 DATED 24.06.2021


PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN WRIT PETITION:

     1        MAYADEVI K.S., AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. SAJEEV, ASSISTANT
              MANAGER/ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM
              ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR - 680101.

     2        M. RADHA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. P.V. REGHUNANDAN,
              ASSISTANT MANAGER, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MEDICAL CENTRE,
              GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR - 680101.

     3        BINDHU LETHA MENON, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O. LEELA,
              ASSISTANT MANAGER, KOUSTHUBHAM REST HOUSE, GURUVAYUR,
              THRISSUR - 680101.

              BY ADVS.
              K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
              M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
              BRIJESH MOHAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4:

     1        T.BREEJA KUMARI, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
              ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE,
              GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR -680101.

     2        R. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
              SECRETARY, KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD, TRAVANCORE
              DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
 COC 1081/21
                           2



         BY ADV P.B.KRISHNAN

         SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS - SC (R1)

         SRI. V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR - SC (R2)


     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 COC 1081/21
                                   3



                          J U D G M E N T

This Contempt Case has been filed with an

allegation that the directions in the judgment of

this Court, dated 24.06.2021, have not been

implemented by the respondents.

2. Sri.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel,

instructed by Sri.Brijesh Mohan - learned counsel

for the petitioners, submitted that even though

this Court directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Board

to implement their resolution - which had been

produced as Ext.P13 in the Writ Petition (appended

as Annexure A in this COC) - no action has been

taken by the 1st respondent-Administrator until

now. He pointed out that, in fact, the Devaswom

Board has resolved, through Annexure C decision

dated 01.07.2021, to implement the judgment, thus

directing the 1st respondent to comply with the

directions therein. He submitted that instead of

doing so, the 1st respondent appears to have COC 1081/21

written a letter to the 2nd respondent - who

responded to it through Annexure D dated

08.07.2021, virtually directing her not to

implement the judgment of this Court. The learned

Senior Counsel, therefore, prayed that action

under the Contempt of Courts Act be initiated

against the respondents.

3. The response on behalf of the 1st

respondent, against the afore submissions, were

made by Sri.P.B.Krishnan, arguing that all which

was resolved by the Devaswom Board, in their

resolution dated 26.04.2021, was to reject

recommendations of the Departmental Promotion

Committee and to inform the Devaswom Recruitment

Board. He submitted that the only role which his

client had in this, was to inform the Recruitment

Board appropriately, which she did; and that

Annexure D proceedings were, thereafter, issued by

the said Authority. He then added that there is no

specific direction against his client to issue any COC 1081/21

particular order pursuant to the afore resolution;

and that since she has already done what was

expected out of her in the resolution dated

26.04.2021, no further action may be initiated

against her.

4. Sri.V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar - learned

counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, submitted

that no allegation of contempt can be impelled

against his client because; for one, there was no

direction against him; and for the second, because

he only notified the Board appropriately through

Annexure D about the impropriety of rejecting the

recommendations of the Departmental Promotion

Committee. He submitted that, therefore, this

cannot be seen to be an affront to the directions

of this Court, but was only intended to inform the

Board about the correct legal position. He,

therefore, prayed that no action be taken against

his client.

5. I have evaluated the afore submissions COC 1081/21

with great amount of care, particularly because it

has been brought to my notice that an appeal has

been attempted by the 1st respondent before a

learned Division Bench of this Court against the

judgment involved in this case.

6. Apart from the fact that I cannot

understand why an appeal should have been

preferred at all - this Court not having issued

any particular direction to the 1st respondent in

the judgment - it is also clear that the 1st

respondent is to act only as a Chief Executive

Officer of the Devaswom Board. The resolution in

question, namely that dated 26.04.2021, as rightly

stated by Sri.P.B.Krishnan, was to the effect that

the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion

Committee have been rejected by the Managing

Committee of the Guruvayur Devaswom Board and to

inform the Recruitment Board accordingly. It is

virtually without contest that the Administrator,

acting in her capacity as the Chief Executive COC 1081/21

Officer of the Devaswom Board, addressed the

Devaswom Recruitment Board on such terms, which,

of course, led to the said Board replying through

Annexure D.

7. The relevant issue in this case is not

how the Devaswom Recruitment Board has acted or

responded to the information given to them in

terms of the resolution of the Managing Committee;

but as to whether the Administrator can be seen to

have violated the directions of this Court.

8. When one closely examines the judgment of

this Court, it is clear that no affirmative

directions had been issued therein; but I had only

left liberty to the Board to take action as per

their resolution as it is legally permissible. It

is also on record that the Devaswom Board has

taken a further decision entrusting the 1st

respondent to comply with the directions of this

Court. It is, of course, argued that, through

Annexure C, what has been done is to direct the COC 1081/21

Administrator to implement the earlier resolution

of the Managing Committee dated 26.04.2021. The

petitioners allege that in spite of this, the

Administrator has chosen not to act on its terms.

9. It, therefore, becomes enjoined upon me

again to have a look through the resolution of the

Managing Committee dated 26.04.2021, a copy of

which has been placed on record as Annexure A. The

first paragraph of the said resolution records the

opinion of majority of the members to the effect

that the recommendations of the Departmental

Promotion Committee be rejected and that the

employees who had entered service prior to 2015 be

granted promotion as per the Guruvayur Devaswom

Employees Regulations. Noticing this, in the

judgment in question, I had only said that the

resolution appears to have taken a decision to

effect promotions based on 1983 Regulations, but

then left it to the Board to take any decision

thereon as per law.

COC 1081/21

10. Obviously, therefore, the Administrator is

only expected to act as per the directions of the

Managing Committee of the Devaswom Board; and if

she fails or refuses to do so, it is up to the

said Board to take action against her, as per the

applicable Rules and Regulations.

11. In this context, the submissions of the

learned counsel for the petitioners - that through

Annexure C, the Managing Committee of the Devaswom

Board had ordered the Administrator to implement

the directions of this Court - will have to be

seen only to mean, at the best, that their

resolution dated 26.04.2021 is now to be

implemented. Ineluctably, therefore, it is for the

Managing Committee of the Devaswom Board to

implement their resolution and the petitioners

cannot, therefore, approach this Court through a

Contempt of Court case against the Administrator

for the said relief. They will certainly have to

move the Devaswom Board appropriately, to seek COC 1081/21

that the resolution dated 26.04.2021 or such other

resolutions, be implemented effectively and if

this is refused to be done by any of its competent

Authority, then necessary action will have to be

taken by the Devaswom Board, rather than the

petitioners seeking such to be done by this Court

which, in any case, this Court is incompetent to

do.

In the afore circumstances, I close this

Contempt Case; leaving liberty to the petitioners

to move the Managing Committee of the Guruvayur

Devaswom Board appropriately based on Annexure C,

if they are so interested; in which event, the

said Authority is left with liberty to take

appropriate action, as they are advised, in terms

of law and after following due procedure.

Before I part with this order, I must advert

to one submission of Sri.P.B.Krishnan, that the

observations of this Court in paragraph 5 of the

judgment creates confusion. What he refers to is COC 1081/21

the line in the said paragraph to the effect 'it

is clear that the Managing Committee appears to

have taken a decision to effect promotions based

on the 1983 Regulations'.

I fail to understand why this apprehension has

been raised because I only read the resolution

dated 26.04.2021 and recorded that it appears to

have taken a decision to effect promotion based on

the 1983 Regulations. This is not a conclusive

finding from this Court, but only a statement of

fact, which I read from the resolution. If the

Administrator has any reason to say that the

resolution does not take such a decision, it is up

to her to raise such objections before the

Managing Committee of the Devaswom Board

appropriately, rather than say that the judgment

has caused confusion.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE RR COC 1081/21

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1081/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Annexure A COPY OF THE DECISION NO.2 OF THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE DATED 26.04.2021.

Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2021 IN WP(C) NO. 10135/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ON.

Annexure C COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.2 DATED 01.07.2021 PASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.

Annexure D COPY OF THE LETTER VIDE NO.26/EA1/KDRB/2018 DATED 08.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.