Kerala High Court
K.R. Sanjayan Nampoothiri vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 1 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 15548 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
K.R. SANJAYAN NAMPOOTHIRI,
AGED 49 YEARS
MELSANTHI, P.D. MANIKANTESWARAM DEVASWOM, NOW WORKING AS
SANTHI GANAPATHI KOVIL, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
KOTTARAKKARA.
BY ADVS.
K.SASIKUMAR
P.S.RAGHUKUMAR
S.ARAVIND
RESPONDENT/S:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.
2 THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.
3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
KOTTARAKKARA GROUP,
KOTTARAKKARA 691 506.
4 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
KULASEKHARANALLUR SUB GROUP, KOTTARAKKARA 691 506.
BY ADV C.K.PAVITHRAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 15548 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was posted as Melsanthi in
P.D.Manikanteswaram Devaswom, Kottarakkara and he joined
on 14.09.2020. According to him, the tenure as Melsanthi in
Devaswom is one year and hence the santhis of sub temples
normally should get a tenure of three years, continuously. By
Ext.P2 and P3 orders, the second respondent proceeded for
selection to the post of Melsanthis of different temples
including P.D Manikanteswaram Devaswom and the petitioner
was directed to be shifted from there to any other temple in
the group. The petitioner requested for continuation in the sub
temple for another two years. He has approached this court
seeking reliefs to quash Ext.P7 order and to declare that the
petitioner being posted as the santhi of the sub temple
Ganapathi Kovil, P.D Manikanteswaram Devaswom, he has a
right normally to continue for a tenure of three years.
2. After perusing R1(a) the learned counsel for the
petitioner confined his claim. The learned counsel submitted
that he was not pursuing the larger claims made in the writ
petition. His limited contention was that by virtue of
Ext.R1(a), the santhis referred to in Ext.R1(a) were selected
on the basis of the interview and the persons who were
chosen were appointed as santhi for a period of one year
against the respective vacancies. The learned counsel
specifically invited my attention to page 2 of Ext.R1(a) which
indicates that the copy of the proceedings was marked, inter
alia, to the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner,
Changanassery as Item No.15, with a direction that since
festival was proceeding in P.D Manikanteswaram Devaswom
Kottarakkara, the petitioner may be released after the festival
was over.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner was that by virtue of the above direction he took
charge on 14.09.2021 and accordingly, his one year tenure
will be over only on 13.09.2021. Opposing the above, the
learned counsel for the Board contended that normally festival
is conducted in Malayalam month of Medam and in the
present case, festival was celebrated only later, due to the
pandemic. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that it was due to reasons beyond the control of the
authorities. It was further contended that by itself will not
confer any specific right on the petitioner since R1(a) refers
to the postings of the several persons by a common list and
they should have a uniform period of tenure of one year.
4. Though the contention of the learned counsel for
the respondent- Devaswom seems to be attractive, it seems
that only in the case of the petitioner, a specific direction was
given to relieve him after the festival was over. Necessarily it
has to be treated as an exceptional circumstance and not as
applicable to all others. In the absence of any specific
provision in Ext.R1(a) which indicates the date of
commencement of one year period and since the Devaswom
could not point out any Rule, guidelines or any notification for
the date of commencement of one year period, I am inclined
to treat the one year period in the case of the petitioner alone
as commencing from the date when he took charge in the
transfer vacancy. Accordingly, he is entitled to continue till
13.09.2021.
5. The learned counsel for the Devaswom pointed out
any change in the date of relieving of the petitioner may have
a cascading effect since another person has now been
transferred to P.D.Manikanteswaram Devaswom, Kottarakkara
against the transferred vacancy of the petitioner, necessarily
it may affect his taking charge in P.D Manikanteswaram
Devaswom. The Devaswom shall make necessary
arrangements to take care of this situation. With these
observations, the writ petition is allowed in part, permitting
the petitioner to continue till 13.09.2021 in
P.D.Manikanteswaram Devaswaom Kottarakkara as referred
to in Ext.R1(a).
sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
R.AV
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15548/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED
14.09.2020 ISSUED FROM THE ASSISTANT
DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER., CHANGANASSERRY.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED
31.05.2021 IN ROC 59/2021/S ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.06.2021
IN ROC 48/2021/S ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
02.06.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE IST
RESPONDENT BOARD.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
10.06.2021 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO
THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.6.2021 IN WPC NO. 12397/2021 PASSED BY
THIS HONBLE COURT.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2021
ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED
15.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.ROC.38/2020/S
DATED 09.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM
COMMISSIONER.
