Sujith Marar vs Malabar Devaswom Board
2023 Latest Caselaw 2000 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 3721 OF 2023
PETITIONER

             SUJITH MARAR
             AGED 37 YEARS
             S/O BALACHANDRAN MARAR, 'POOMADATHIL', THUVAKKODE P.O,
             CHEMANCHERI VIA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673304
             BY ADV MANAS P HAMEED


RESPONDENTS:

     1       MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
             REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY,
             ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
     2       THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
             ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
     3       SHREE PISHARIKAVU DEVASWOM
             REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KOLLAM P.O,
             QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673307
     4       THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SHREE PISHARIKAVU DEVASWOM
             KOLLAM P.O, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673307

             SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (SC) R1 & R2
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.3721 OF 2023
                                     2


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2023

The petitioner states that he was a candidate for regular

selection to the post of Panikottu (Vadyam) notified as per

Ext.P1 notification issued by the 3rd respondent-Shree

Pisharikavu Devaswom. The petitioner was waiting since 2018

for selection. The selection was delayed due to certain

disputes between the Devaswom Board and the Board of

Trustees.

2. Now, instead of proceeding with the selection,

respondents 3 and 4 are proceeding to regularise some

temporary employees, who were appointed quite recently.

Such appointment is being done without much publicity and

without giving an opportunity to all interested eligible parties to

participate in the selection process.

3. The petitioner contends that the action of the

respondents in stopping the proceedings pursuant to the WP(C) NO.3721 OF 2023

notification issued in the year 2018 and in attempting to

regularise temporary employees is highly illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioner has preferred Ext.P8 representation before the

2nd respondent in this regard. The petitioner's representation

has not been looked into. At the same time, the Executive

Officer is proceeding with the regularisation as is evident from

Ext.P10.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1

and 2. In view of the nature of reliefs to be granted in the writ

petition, notice to respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is against

regularisation of temporary employees in a post which was

already notified for direct recruitment in the year 2018. When

the petitioner has applied for the post in question and selection

proceedings are not concluded, it is improper for respondents

3 and 4 to resort to filling up the vacancies by regularisation of

temporary appointees, who are appointed subsequent to the WP(C) NO.3721 OF 2023

notification, contends the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am

of the view that the 2nd respondent shall advert to the

grievance raised by the petitioner atleast at the first instance.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation

and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two

months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

as well as respondents 3 and 4. Any further proceedings or

appointments to the post in question pursuant to Ext.P10 will

be subject to the orders to be passed by the 2nd respondent.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.3721 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3721/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 01.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY ON 01.12.2018 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 01.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM DATED 01.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF INTERVIEW MEMO NO.P.D.78/18 COMMUNICATED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2021 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.3072 OF 2021 AND W.P.(C).NO.4626 OF 2021 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 19.09.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.10.2022 COMMUNICATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RTI ACT Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.12.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06.01.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT, RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.12.2022 COMMUNICATED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT