Kerala High Court
N. Ajikumar vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 7 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 24721 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
N. AJIKUMAR
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. NEELAKANTA BHATTATHIRI, AJI BHAVAN, KALLUR
MADOM, KEEZHATTINGAL, ATTINGAL POST,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695101
BY ADV J.JAYAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECETARY., PIN - 695003
2 THE COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEAD
QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, VARKALA GROUP,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695141
4 G.H. BIJU
KEEZHSANTHI, POZHIKKARA DEVASWOM, VARKALA
GROUP, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695141
BY ADVS.
SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
P.U.VINOD KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WPC 24721/2023
..2..
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that he preferred Ext.P1 application for
being transferred to three places of his choice, but that, none of
them had been acceded to by the Travancore Devaswom Board.
He thus approached this Court and obtained Ext.P6 judgment,
whereby, the Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to
consider his statutory appeal, but which has now concluded in
Ext.P7, finding that he is not eligible for the transfer as requested.
He thus assails Ext.P7 and the consequential Ext.P8 order of
tranfer - through which he has been displaced to a place which he
did not seek - as being illegal and unlawful.
2. Smt.V.A.Mini - learned counsel for the petitioner,
explained that the sole reason why the request of her client in
Ext.P1 application has been rejected is because, the "Ilangallur
Kavu" - which has been referred to as his choice No.3 therein, is,
in fact, choice No.4 because, above it the "Kullamuttam Palliyara
Kavu" has also been shown. She submitted that this was only a
mistake and that if the "Devaswom Board" found that an
application containing more than three choices is defective, it
ought to have been rejected for such reason. She argued that
this was not done, but that her client's request for being
WPC 24721/2023
..3..
transferred to "Ilangallur Kavu" - where a junior has now been
accomodated - has also been rejected for specious reason, as is
evident from Ext.P7. She thus reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P7
and the consequential Ext.P8, to the extent impugned, be set
aside.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Tranvancore
Devaswom Board - Sri.P.U.Vinod Kumar, controverted the
submissions of Smt.V.A.Mini, saying that, as is ex facie evident
from Ext.P1, the petitioner had made four choices - of which
"Ilangallur Kavu" was the fourth one. He submitted that,
therefore, said station was not offered to him, while the other
three mentioned could not be granted to him, because his seniors
are working therein. He, however, conceded that, even as of
today, a junior to the petitioner has been accomodated at
"Ilangallur Kavu"; while he has been transferred to
"Thiruarattukavu", which was not part of his choice in general
transfer.
4. The afore explanation of Sri.P.U.Vinod Kumar presents
certain problems for the Travancore Devaswom Board. This is
because, if, as stated by them, the petitioner's request to
"Ilangallur Kavu" could not be seen to be as per his choice - it
being included in Ext.P1 as the fourth one - then certainly, his
WPC 24721/2023
..4..
general transfer should have been considered with respect to
that station also because, it is now conceded that he has been
now positioned in a place where he did not choose.
5. To paraphrase, if "Ilangallur Kavu" was found to be
not part of his choice, then it was certainly necessary for the
Devaswom Board to have considered his transfer, to that position
in the general transfer and not as part of his request. I say so
because, it is expressly conceded by the Travancore Devaswom
Board that a junior of the petitioner has been now accommodated
at "Ilangallur Kavu"; and one fails to understand why this was
done.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that petitioner's
request for transfer to "Ilangallur Kavu" will have to be
considered by the Travancore Devaswom Board, after hearing
him, as also the person who is presently posted there.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition,
granting liberty to the petitioner to make an apposite request for
transfer to "Ilangallur Kavu"; and if this is done within a period of
two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,
same shall be considered, after hearing him, as also any other
person who may be interested, including the person who is
presently posted there; thus culminating in an appropriate order
WPC 24721/2023
..5..
and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but
not later than one month from the date of reciept of the said
request.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ACR
WPC 24721/2023
..6..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24721/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 . TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR GENERAL
TRANSFER DATED 21/3/2023 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
NORMS OF GENERAL TRANSFER DATED
5/3/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
5/5/2023 IN WP(C) NO. 15197/2023 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED
24/4/2023 FLED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL/REVISION DATED
2/6/2023 FLED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
7/6/2023 IN WP(C ) NO. 18422/2023 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/7/2023
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/5/2023
OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
