Kerala High Court
Geethanath K.V vs Sankaravarma V.K on 28 July, 2025
WA NO.208/2017 1
2025:KER:55332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025/6TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO.208 OF 2017
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2016 IN WP(C)
NO.2749/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 GEETHANATH K.V.
S/O.BALACHANDRAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT PALATTU HOUSE,
NALLALAM AMSOM DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK.
2 P.C.PADMAJA
KIZHAKE PATHAYAPURA,
MANKAVU PALACE P.O., MANKAVU,CALICUT-7.
3 V.M.GEETHA
W/O.NANDAKUMARAN,
SREEPADAM,P.O.KOMMERI, KOZHIKODE-7.
4 RESMI RAJA
W/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN,
ATHULYA RAJA APARTMENTS,
NEAR KALPAKA THEATER, P.O.MANKAVU,CALICUT-7.
5 P.S.RAJEEV
S/O.SANKARA NARAYANAN,
"ASHA", AZCHAVATTOM, MANKAVU,CALICUT-7.
BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON
WA NO.208/2017 2
2025:KER:55332
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 SANKARAVARMA V.K.
INSPECTOR,CENTRAL DEVASWOM,ZAMORIN RAJA OF
CALICUT, RESIDING AT MANJEERAM,
PANNIYANKARA,THIRUVANNUR,CALICUT.
2 COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,HOUSEFED
COMPLEX,ERANHIPALAM,KOZHIKODE-673006.
3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,KOZHIKODE-673006.
4 ZAMORIN RAJA OF CALICUT
REPRESENTED BY TRUSTEE,CENTRAL DEVASWOM-
THALI,CALICUT-673001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, R1
SMT.R.RANJANIE, R2 & R3
SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.05.2025, THE COURT ON 28.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.208/2017 3
2025:KER:55332
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated
16.12.2016 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2749 of
2015. Appellants were additional respondents 4 to 8 in the said Writ
Petition. Respondents herein were the petitioner and respondents 1
to 3 respectively in the W.P.(C).
2. The Writ Petition was filed by the 1 st respondent
contending that he was appointed as an Inspector in a retirement
vacancy in the Central Devaswom by the trustee of Zamorin Raja of
Calicut vide Exhibit P1 appointment order. He took charge with
effect from 05.09.2009. By Exhibit P2 order dated 14.12.2010, the
2nd respondent sanctioned posts in the Devaswom and while doing
so, the post of Inspector, in which the 1 st respondent was appointed,
was upgraded to that of Inspector (Executive Officer Grade).
Pursuant to the upgradation vide Exhibit P3 order, the 2 nd
respondent also recommended the case of the 1 st respondent for
2025:KER:55332
fixation of pay scale to the post of Inspector (Executive Officer
Grade) in the entry cadre. Pursuant to Exhibit P3, by Exhibit P4
proceedings, appointment of the 1 st respondent was approved in the
newly sanctioned post of Inspector (Executive Officer Grade), but it
was noted therein that the approval was with effect from 23.05.2011
and that the pay scale fixed was in the level of LD clerk. Aggrieved
by Exhibit P4 proceedings to the extent that the scale of pay was
fixed as equal to that of LD clerk, the 1 st respondent had preferred
Exhibit P5 revision petition before the 2 nd respondent. He alleged
that the said revision petition was kept pending and that upon
enquiry he had been issued with Exhibit P6 communication by the
2nd respondent wherein it had been stated that he is not in position
to consider the application for pay scale or promotion. Perceiving
that his revision petition had been dismissed in view of Exhibit P6
and alleging that while the basic pay of an Executive Officer is
Rs.8,900/- plus DA and other allowances, he who is an Inspector
(Executive Officer Grade) was only being paid a salary of
Rs.5,000/-, which is that of an LD clerk fixed as per Exhibit P4, and
terming the same to be arbitrary, the 1 st respondent had preferred
2025:KER:55332
the Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:
"i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or
direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and quash
the same.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to release the
salary and other allowances in the cadre of Executive Officer
and arrears thereof in terms of Exhibit P2 order including grade
promotion within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court ;
iii) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or
direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P4 in so far it
limits approval w.e.f. 23.05.2011 and the scale of pay fixed to
the petitioner ;
iv) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or
direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P3 and quash
the same in so far as it fixing the salary and appointment in the
entry cadre and orders may be passed ;
v) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and
necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. During pendency of the W.P.(C), appellants filed
2025:KER:55332
I.A.No.3036 of 2015 seeking to implead as respondents in the W.P.
(C) and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated
03.03.2015. Appellant No.4 thereafter filed a counter affidavit inter
alia contending that Exhibit P6 order which is under challenge in the
W.P.(C) to the extent it rejects the claim of the 1 st respondent is
legally correct, just and proper thus warranting no interference as
sought in the W.P.(C). The 1st respondent thereafter filed a reply
affidavit producing Exhibit P7 order dated 24.06.2013 rendered in
R.P.No.13 of 2011 by the 2 nd respondent. It was stated in the reply
affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that he was not aware of the
decision taken by the 2nd respondent in the R.P. and that the
revision had been disposed way back on 24.06.2013 vide Exhibit P7
order wherein the Commissioner had held that the entry cadre of
respondent No.1 is of the Executive Officer and that Exhibit P4
decision of the Assistant Commissioner is violative of the decision of
the Malabar Devaswom Board. By Exhibit P7 order, the matter had
been referred to the Malabar Devaswom Board for a decision. In
view of the said development, it was stated by respondent No.1 in
the reply affidavit that, in view of Exhibit P7 order, Exhibit P6 has no
2025:KER:55332
relevancy and per Exhibit P7, it is the Malabar Devaswom Board
that is to take a decision in the matter.
4. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment
disposed of the W.P. inter alia directing to treat the findings of the
2nd respondent in Exhibit P7 order dated 24.06.2013 as a final order
of the 2nd respondent and leaving all other issues open to be
agitated by the contesting respondents before the Devaswom
Board. It was also directed that the respondents shall disburse to
the 1st respondent the consequential benefits flowing from Exhibit P7
order to the extent clarified in the judgment within a period of three
months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. Aggrieved by
the said judgment, the appellants, who are additional respondents 4
to 8 in the W.P.(C), have preferred this appeal.
5. Heard Sri.Mohan C.Menon, Advocate, for the appellants
(additional respondents 4 to 8), Sri.K.Mohanakannan for the 1 st
respondent, Smt.R.Ranjanie, Standing Counsel, for respondents 2
and 3 and Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan for the 4th respondent.
6. It is contended by Sri.Mohan C.Menon, placing reliance
on Annexures I to VI produced along with the Writ Appeal that the
2025:KER:55332
judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside since
it is against the facts and law. He submits that the learned Single
Judge ought to have noted that when the Malabar Devaswom Board
considered the approval of appointment to the post of LDC
(Inspector), by mistake/deliberately with oblique motive the said post
was described as Inspector (In the grade of Executive Officer)
instead of the settled post of Inspector (in the grade of LDC) in the
agenda or minutes dated 18.01.2011 and that this mistake of fact
was sought to be agitated by the 1 st respondent for placing himself
above all the seniors in the Central Devaswom office. It is further
contended that the appellants, who are the seniors, are most
effected in the adjudication were not made parties in the Writ
Petition and the appellants had to get themselves impleaded as
additional respondents 4 to 8. The learned counsel contends that a
positive declaration ought not have been rendered by the learned
Single Judge since the 1 st respondent has not approached the court
with clean hands. The official respondents were hand-in-glove with
the 1st respondent and Annexures I to VI in their custody ought to
have been produced by them before the learned Single Judge. The
2025:KER:55332
learned Single Judge went wrong in holding that entitlement of the
1st respondent to the post of Executive Officer and entitlement of the
1st respondent to the pay scale of Executive Officer are to be
independently considered vis.a.vis the rectification of anomaly of
pay scale of his seniors. The mistake of fact of the designation of
the grade of Inspector in the Central Devaswom Office is a further
proof of the fact that there is no application for such an upgradation
to the post either by the incumbent or by the employer and neither
was there any sanction sought for nor approval accorded. The
affected seniors were neither informed nor heard while re-
designating the Lower Division Clerk's post to that of Executive
Officer over the heads of all seniors in the office. It is contended
that persons having 29 years of service in the clerical cadre have
been overlooked for preferring a person having five years of service
on the basis of an erroneous note in the Malabar Devaswom Board
minutes. It is contended that the mistake in noting the designation of
grade and reaping benefits of the error amounts to unjust
enrichment which is liable to be deprecated. The learned counsel
also contends that a mistake of fact can be corrected at any time
2025:KER:55332
either suo moto or otherwise when the same comes to the
knowledge of the person who was instrumental to the mistake or
error and no civil right would emerge from a mistake. The learned
counsel thus contends that the Writ Appeal may be allowed as
prayed for.
7. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st
respondent as well as the other respondents made submissions in
line with the counter affidavits filed. It is contended on behalf of the
1st respondent that there is no error or mistake in the judgment
rendered by the learned Single Judge.
8. We have heard both sides in detail and have duly
considered the contentions put forth. In Exhibit P7 order, the 2 nd
respondent Commissioner had noted some contradiction and had
opined that he did not find it good or proper to interpret the decision
of the Board by a statutory recourse and to issue orders thereon. It
was in the said circumstance that the 2 nd respondent had in Exhibit
P7 deemed it fair and proper to leave the matter to the Malabar
Devaswom Board for an unambiguous decision and had ordered
accordingly. It is relevant to note that the 1 st respondent, who was
2025:KER:55332
the petitioner in the W.P.(C), had himself stated that in view of
Exhibit P7 order, Exhibit P6 which was challenged by him has no
relevancy and per Exhibit P7, it is the Malabar Devaswom Board
that has to take a decision in the matter. Exhibit P7 order had not
been challenged by the appellants and the learned Single Judge
had in the impugned judgment only directed that Exhibit P7 order
dated 24.06.2013 to the extent it relates to the entitlement of the 1 st
respondent for scale of pay attached to the post of inspector
(Executive Officer Grade) shall be treated as a final order of the 2 nd
respondent and had left all other issues open to be agitated by the
contesting respondents before the Devaswom Board. It is noted
from the affidavit dated 26.05.2025 filed by the 1 st appellant that the
1st respondent has retired from the service on 30.04.2024 and that
the 2nd appellant has retired from service on 31.10.2024. The 1 st
and 3rd appellants have been promoted on 1.11.2024 i.e., during the
interregnum. It is also noted that in the retirement vacancy of
respondent No.1, which had arisen on 01.05.2024, the 4 th
respondent had issued a public notification inviting candidates to the
post of LDC (Inspector) in the pay scale of Rs.9,940-16,510 on
2025:KER:55332
08.10.2024 and an appointment has been made on 27.11.2024. In
view of the said developments, and taking note of the fact that the
learned Single Judge had in the impugned judgment taking note of
Exhibit P7 left the matter to the decision of the Malabar Devaswom
Board with all other issues open, we see no reason to interfere with
the judgment impugned. It would be open to the appellants to raise
subsisting contentions, if any, before the Devaswom Board as
permitted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.
The Writ Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
