Anoop P.M. vs Malabar Devaswom Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 7881 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                         WP(C).No.2191 OF 2021(Y)
PETITIONER :-

                ANOOP P.M., AGED 36 YEARS
                S/O.MANNYAN NAMBOODIRI, MELSANTHI,
                SRI MANAPULLY KAVU, EAST YAKKARA,
                PALAKKAD - 678 013,
                RESIDING AT 102 VAINIKA APARTMENTS,
                DURGA NAGAR SECOND STREET, MANAPULLY KAVU,
                EAST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 013.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
                SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
                SRI.SABU GEORGE
                SMT.B.ANUSREE
                SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
                SMT.MEERA P.

RESPONDENTS :-

      1         MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
                REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
                ERANHIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 006.

      2         THE COMMISSIONER,
                MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
                ERANHIPPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 006.

      3         EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                MANAPULLY KAVU, EAST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
                PIN - 678 013.

      4         A.R.NARAYANAN,
                LDC (HIGHER), SRI MANAPULLY KAVU, EAST YAKKARA,
                PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 013.

                R1   & R2 BY   ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMINARAYAN, SC
                R3   BY ADV.   SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
                R3   BY ADV.   SMT.D.S.THUSHARA
                R3   BY ADV.   SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
                R3   BY ADV.   SMT.T.V.NEEMA
                R4   BY ADV.   SRI.G.BIJU
                R4   BY ADV.   SMT.BOBBY U. NAIR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2191 OF 2021(Y)

                                      -: 2 :-


                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of March, 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"(i) Declare that Respondent No.4 is not qualified to make an application for appointment as Melsanthi pursuant to Exhibit P2 notification.

(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining Respondent No.1 to 3 from appointing Respondent No.4 as Melsanthi of the Sri.Manapully Kavu.

(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of Exhibit P3 representation within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned

counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent as well as the learned

counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had

been appointed as Melsanthi of the Manapully Kavu temple, Palakkad

from 1.2.2020 to 31.1.2021. It is submitted that by Ext.P2 notification

dated 1.1.2021, the process for selection of a Melsanthi for the

subsequent year was notified. The petitioner did not submit an

application pursuant to Ext.P2 on the belief that the embargo in

Ext.P2 that he should not have been a Melsanthi within the preceding WP(C).No.2191 OF 2021(Y)

two years would apply to him. However, he had submitted Ext.P3

representation pointing out that only the basic rituals were being

carried out in the temple during his term and that the temple had

remained closed for a major portion of the term and that therefore, he

should be permitted to continue as Melsanthi. It is submitted that

thereafter, the 4th respondent had been appointed as Melsanthi. It is

stated that the 4 th respondent had continued as Melsanthi in the

temple from 1.2.2018 to 31.1.2019. It is submitted that if the last

date for submission of applications pursuant to Ext.P2 is taken note

of, then the 4th respondent would also be within the embargo as

stated in Ext.P2. It is, therefore, submitted that since the application

of the 4th respondent who also was a Melsanthi within the two years

from the last date of receipt of the application as provided in Ext.P2

was accepted, the petitioner's request should also have been

considered.

4. The respondents have placed detailed counter affidavits on

record. The 3rd respondent has specifically stated that it is an

admitted fact that the petitioner did not submit any application in

pursuance to Ext.P2. It is contended that the appointment is from the

first of February of each year to the 31 st of January in the subsequent

year and that therefore, the 4 th respondent would not fall within the

embargo. It is further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court WP(C).No.2191 OF 2021(Y)

had considered an identical situation and that by judgment dated

18.12.2020 in W.P.(C) No.27395/2020 it was found that there was no

frustration of contract and therefore, the term of the contract is liable

to be adhered to.

5. The 4th respondent has also placed a counter affidavit on

record, wherein it is specifically stated that the 4 th respondent's

earlier term as Melsanthi was from 1.2.2018 to 31.1.2019 and that

the embargo specified in Ext.P2 would operate with reference to the

date when the term is due to start, that is, 1.2.2021. It is stated that

since the term for which the 4th respondent has been appointed

pursuant to Ext.P2 is from 1.2.2021 to 31.1.2022, the embargo would

not apply to the 4th respondent.

6. I have considered the contentions advanced on all sides.

Pursuant to an interim order of this Court, the petitioner is continuing

as Melsanthi. It appears from the counter affidavits placed on record

by the respondents that the embargo with regard to not being a

Melsanthi for the previous two years was intended to operate with

reference to the date of appointment, that is, 1.2.2021. However, in

view of the fact that the petitioner has been continuing as Melsanthi

on the basis of interim orders of this Court and since it is an admitted

fact that during the term of appointment of the petitioner, there was

considerable loss of functioning days due to the pandemic and the WP(C).No.2191 OF 2021(Y)

resultant lock down, I am of the opinion that the issue can be resolved

by permitting the petitioner to continue till 31.3.2021.

Without expressing any view on the merits of the

contentions raised by the parties, this writ petition is disposed of

directing the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue as

Melsanthi till 31.3.2021. The petitioner will vacate the office on the

said date and the 4th respondent will be permitted to take over charge

as Melsanthi on 1.4.2021 and continue for the rest of the term for

which he has been appointed.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Jvt/8.3.2021 WP(C).No.2191 OF 2021(Y)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S1/63/2019-2020 DATED 25.1.2020 COMMUNICATED BY LETTER DATED 5.2.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.S1/63/2020-2021 DATED 1.1.2021.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.1.2021.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 1.1.2021 FOR THE POST OF MELSANTHI

EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE TABULATION SHEET OF MARKS AWARDED TO THE CANDIDATES IN THE INTERVIEW HELD ON 22.1.2021.

EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.8.2020.

EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO 27395 OF 2020 DATED 18.12.2020

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE