Kerala High Court
Sumod vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 14 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Tuesday, the 14th day of June 2022 / 24th Jyaishta, 1944
W.P.(C) NO. 17626 OF 2022 (C)
PETITIONERS:
1. SUMOD, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. K.A.RAMANAN, RESIDING AT VATTAPARAMBIL
HOUSE, PANAVALLY P.O., THYKATTUSERIL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA -
688526. WORKING AS SHANTHI, THREECHATTUKULAM, VAIKOM.
2. HARI PRASAD, S/O. SIVANKUTTI NAIR, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHEEJA
BHAVAN, PALATHARA, KERALADHITHYAPURAM, POWDIKONAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695588. WORKING AS PATHRAMTHEPU, THAKAZHY,
AMBALAPUZHA.
3. ARUN S.KUMAR, S/O. SUDHAKARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT
SOWPARNIKA, ELAYAMPARAMBU, THEKUMBHAGAM, KADAKKAVUR, CHIRAYAMKEEZHU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695306 - WORKING AS KAZHAKKOM, KELESWARAM,
VARKALA.
4. VISHNUKUMAR B., S/O. BALACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT
VARIYAVETTILMELEATHIL, MANAKALA P.O., ADOOR, PIN- 691551, WORKING AS
WATCHER, ADOOR, KOTTARAKARA.
5. SREERAJ T.K., S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT
THANAMCHERIYILLLLOM, ALA P.O., CHEGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA - 689126,
WORKING AS SHANTHI, PADIGATTUMCHERI, PULIYOOR, ARANMULA.
6. SANTHOSHKUMAR S.R., S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT
RUGHMINIBHAVAN, MULLOOR P.O., VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695521. WORKING AS KAZHAKOM, THREEPALAYUR, CHENGANNUR, NEYATTINKARA.
7. SREENIVASAN P.D., S/O. DAMODHARAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT
PADINJARAEKAVANAL, PADANADU WEST, CHENGANNUR P.O., ALAPPUZHA -
689506. WORKING AS WATCHER, THULISHALAKURATTI, THIRUVALLA.
8. CHANDRA SEKHARAN PILLAI J., S/O. JANARDHANAN PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MULLASSERILVEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, KAVANADU P.O.,
KOLLAM-691003. WORKING AS WATCHER, SREENARAYANAPURAM DEVASWOM,
KILIKOLLOOR SUB GROUP, KOLLAM GROUP.
RESPONDENTS:
1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695003 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, AYURVEDA COLLEGE JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
4. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695001.
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 Notification
No.707R1/2022/K.D.R.B., dated 18.05.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent to
fill up the post of 'L.D.Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade II', until disposal
of the above Writ Petition.
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition
and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments
of M/S.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, O.M.SHALINA & T.V.VINU, Advocates for the
petitioners, SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN, STANDING COUNSEL for Respondent 1,
SRI.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, STANDING COUNSEL for Respondent 2 and the
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent 3 to 5, the court passed the following:
[P.T.O.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 17626 of 2022
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022
ORDER
I have heard Smt. Shameena Salahudeen, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. C.K.Pavithran, the learned counsel appearing
for the 1st respondent, Sri. Nandagopal Nambiar, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government
Pleader.
2. Smt. Shameena Salahudeen, the learned counsel pointed out that
the steps initiated by respondents 1 and 2 to fill up the vacancies in the post
of LD Clerk/Sub Group Officer Gr.II through 'Direct Recruitment' without
providing for reservations in promotions cannot be sustained. The learned
counsel would rely on the judgment of this Court in Madhu S. v.
Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors. [2017 (1) KLT 653] and it was
argued that this Court had directed the respondent Board to take emergent
steps to see that the posts in the Devaswom Board, which can be reserved for
the persons with disability, are got identified under Section 32 of the Act, by
the Government. Directions were also issued to the Board to take urgent
W.P.(C) No.17626 of 2022
steps for the appointment of physically handicapped candidates under 3%
seats, reserved for them in the identified posts. While doing so, it was ordered
that the handicapped employees working under the Board and eligible for
appointment by transfer/promotion shall also be considered against the
vacancies in identified posts in the 3% quota. According to the learned
counsel, instead of complying with the directions, the respondents are
proceeding to carry out recruitment without determining the backlog
vacancies and without ascertaining the entire cadre strength. It is further
submitted that the Act of 1995 was replaced by the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 and a statutory obligation is cast upon the respondents
to identify the posts and also to effect appointment through promotion. The
learned counsel has placed reliance on Union of India v. Ravi Prakash
Gupta, (2010) 7 SCC 626], Union of India v. National Federation of the
Blind, (2013) 10 SCC 772] and State of Kerala v. Leesamma Joseph
[2021 (9) SCC 208] and it is argued that reservation has to be computed with
reference to the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and no
distinction can be made between the posts to be filled 'by direct recruitment'
and 'by promotion'. According to the learned counsel, without determining
the cadre strength, the respondents were not justified in proceeding with the
W.P.(C) No.17626 of 2022
recruitment. The learned counsel would also refer to Exhibit P4 and it is
pointed out that the final seniority list published by the 1st respondent on
22.01.2022 shows that the petitioners who are '8' in number are entitled to
the promotion and it is in order to deprive them of their promotional
prospects, that the respondents are proceedings with the direct recruitment.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it is stated
that the method of appointment of LD Clerk/Sub Group Officer Gr.II is by way
of 'direct recruitment' and 'by promotion' from lower grade temple employees.
They have taken the stand that as per the Rules formulated under Section 35
of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 65% of vacancies
are to be filled up by direct recruitment and 35% of the vacancies are to be
filled up by promotion from low paid temple employees. It is the case of the
respondents that the petitioners are entitled for promotion only in the 35%
quota and only one person out of the petitioners can be appointed as per the
above criteria adopted by the respondents. From the counter affidavit, it does
not appear that the respondents have ascertained the backlog vacancies or
the cadre strength as directed by this Court in Madhu (supra).
4. The intention of the legislature by enacting the Act of 1995 and
Act of 2016 is to provide for the integration of persons with disabilities into
W.P.(C) No.17626 of 2022
the social mainstream and to lay down a strategy for comprehensive
development and programs and services and equalization of opportunities for
persons with disabilities and for their education, training, employment and
rehabilitation amongst other responsibilities.
5. From the submissions advanced, prima facie, I find force in the
submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that initiation
of steps by the respondents without calculating the cadre strength and after
determining the backlog vacancies may result in petitioners losing out on their
promotional avenues.
6. I find from the submission of Sri. Nandagopal Nambiar that
Ext.P1 notification has been issued for filling up of 50 Sub Group Officers in
Grade II Category. It is also submitted that more than 65, 0000 candidates
have submitted their applications. In that view of the matter, I am of the
view that as an interim measure, with a view to protecting the interest of the
petitioners herein, directions can be issued to the respondents to place on
record the cadre strength of the post notified and to which the petitioners can
aspire for promotion and also the backlog vacancies as on date calculated by
the respondents based on directions issued by this Court in Madhu (supra).
The respondents shall place on record the above details within a period of
W.P.(C) No.17626 of 2022
three weeks.
It is submitted by Sri. C.K.Pavithran, the learned standing counsel that
the TDB shall follow the directions issued by the Apex Court as well as this
Court and shall not do any act to the prejudice of persons with disabilities.
He undertakes that 8 vacancies out of the total 50 vacancies shall be kept
unfilled. The said submission is recorded. Respondents 1 and 2 are
therefore directed not to fill up 8 vacancies out of 50 vacancies in Ext.P1
without obtaining prior orders from this Court.
Post after three weeks.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
avs
14-06-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
