Kerala High Court
Shyama Krishnan V vs Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board on 13 June, 2025
2025:KER:41322
W.A No.766 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 766 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.12352
OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHYAMA KRISHNAN V
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O AJITH KUMAR P.S, KRISHNAS' MAMMIYUR CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680103
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR
SMT.BISMI T.A.
SRI.MOHANDAS K.CHACKO
SRI.RAMESH.P.N.
SMT.ANSILA C.A.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD
RKERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD, IIND FLOOR,
DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT
AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695001
2025:KER:41322
W.A No.766 of 2025
2
2 THE SECRETARY
KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD, IIND FLOOR, DEVASWOM
BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA
COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE(DEVASWOM) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
4 GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR REPRESENTED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, PIN - 680101
5 RAHUL V
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, 347, BALAKRISHNA NIVAS,
PAZHAYANNUR, THALAPPALLY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680587
ADDL. R6 GURUVAYOOR DEVASWAM MANAGING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY
ITS ADMINISTRATOR,GURUVAYOOR P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT IS
SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6 AS PER ORDER DATED
16/04/2025 IN W.A 766/2025.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.SANJAY
SHRI.SANIL KUMAR G.
SHRI.SATHEESH KUMAR K.
SMT.PRIYANKA RAJAN
SRI.V.V.NANGAGOPAL NAMBIAR
SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2025, THE COURT ON 13.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:41322
W.A No.766 of 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard on the question of admission.
2. This intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958 assails the order dated 27.03.2025 in W.P.(C)
No.12352 of 2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has refused
to grant stay of the impugned order appointing the 5th respondent
on the post of Iduthudi Player (Temple) by the Kerala Devaswom
Recruitment Board. However, the learned Single Judge observed
that any appointment made on the aforesaid post shall be subject
to the final outcome of the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant has challenged the appointment of the 5th respondent on
the post of Iduthudi Player (Temple) which is illegal. The
appellant had also applied for the above post pursuant to the
notification dated 11.01.2025. The number of posts notified was
1. Earlier the 5th respondent was engaged on temporary basis in
the same Devaswom, however, he was removed from service due
2025:KER:41322
W.A No.766 of 2025
to guilty of misconduct, finding dereliction of the duties vested in
him. Even after his reinstatement in service, he failed to report
for duty. Since the 5th respondent used to commit the same
mistake again and again, the Devaswom Board found him
ineligible to hold the post and his service was terminated. As a
result, the Deputy Administrator of the Temple was assigned with
the respective supervisory duties.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that
this Court, by way of another interim order dated 16.04.2025,
after assessing the impact of termination of service of the 5th
respondent as quoted hereinabove, specifically observed that the
Devaswom Recruitment Board has considered the candidature of
the 5th respondent and the Board was of the opinion that the
termination of the 5th respondent from service was beyond its
information and knowledge. In the aforesaid circumstances, vide
order dated 16.04.2025, this Court granted liberty to the
Recruitment Board to initiate appropriate action against the 5th
respondent in accordance with law. In such a situation, the
2025:KER:41322
W.A No.766 of 2025
learned Single Judge, instead of granting relief subject to the final
outcome of the writ petition, ought to have stayed the
appointment of the 5th respondent. Hence this appeal.
5. In view of the fact that the 5th respondent was
terminated earlier, the Board could not have appointed him on the
post in question. However, writ appeal is normally not
maintainable against an interim order passed by a learned Single
Judge. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is one of the
possible views even otherwise it is well settled in law that
termination orders cannot be stayed by way of interim order.
However, the same shall remain subject to the final outcome of
the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has not committed
any error as also the writ appeal is not maintainable against an
interim order. Since the 5th respondent has already been
terminated in the year 2015, he could not have been appointed by
the Board at all, and he cannot be allowed to continue for an
indefinite period.
2025:KER:41322
W.A No.766 of 2025
Since we are not granting any interim relief as on today,
taking into consideration the fact that the illegality cannot be
allowed to continue, it would be appropriate to request the
learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition, as expeditiously
as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Ordered
accordingly. It is made clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M
JUDGE
smp
