Kerala High Court
Hareesh Kumar. S vs The Devaswom Commissioner on 8 September, 2025
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
2025:KER:66298
WP(C) NO. 21436 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 17TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21436 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
HAREESH KUMAR. S
AGED 48 YEARS
SON OF SIVADASAN,
POOTHUVELI, C.M.C. 27,
CHERTHALA. Р.О., DIST. ALAPUZHA,
PIN - 688852
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM
SHRI.R.MAHESH (KOTTAPPURAM)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANDANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695003
2 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
VAIKOM GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
DIST. KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686141
3 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER
KERALADITHYAPURAM KRISHNA SWAMI DEVASWOM,
KERALADITHYAPURAM SUB GROUP,
VAIKOM GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
CHERTHALA, DIST. ALAPUZHA,
PIN - 695015
2025:KER:66298
WP(C) NO. 21436 OF 2025
2
4 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER
ELAMKAVU DEVASWOM, VAIKOM GROUP,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686141
5 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
KRISHNAN KOVIL DEVASWOM,
VAIKOM GROUP, VAIKOM, DIST. KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686141
6 ANANTHA PADMANABHAN
MELSANTHI, KERALADITHYAPURAM DEVASWOM,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, VAYALAR,
CHERTHALA. DIST. ALAPUZHA, PIN - 688536
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR
SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE
SMT.A.A.GEETHA
SHRI.HYBIN JOSE P.P.
SHRI.JERIN ROY
SHRI.SAVIO AUGUSTINE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.07.2025, THE COURT ON 08.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66298
WP(C) NO. 21436 OF 2025
3
T.R. RAVI, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.21436 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P2 order
of transfer issued by the 2nd respondent, to the extent it transfers
the petitioner to Elamkavu Devaswom under the Vaikom Group
and the 6th respondent to Keraladhithyapuram Krishna Swami
Devaswom, under the Vaikom Group. According to the petitioner,
the order is in violation of Ext.P1 Guidelines for transfer. There is
also a prayer for re-transferring the petitioner to
Keraladhithyapuram Krishna Swami Devaswom from Elamkavu
Devaswom and the 6th respondent from Keraladhithyapuram
Krishna Swami Devaswom to either Elamkavu Devaswom or any
other Devaswom under the Vaikom Group of Travancore
Devaswom Board.
2. During the General Transfer of 2025, the
petitioner who was working as Melsanthi in Aroor Karthyayini
Temple submitted 3 options as Vaikom Krishnan Kovil Devaswom,
Trichattukulam Mahadeva Devaswom and Keraladhithyapuram
2025:KER:66298
WP(C) NO. 21436 OF 2025
Devaswom. However, By Ext.P2, the petitioner was transferred to
Elamkavu Devaswom, which was not opted by the petitioner.
Ext.P2 also transfers the 6th respondent to Keraladhithyapuram
Krishna Swami Devaswom from Krishnan Kovil Devaswom.
According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent has worked in
Keraladhithyapuram Krishna Swami Devaswom earlier for more
than 3 years before he was transferred to Krishnan Kovil
Devaswom and hence, the present transfer violates Guideline
No.11(B). It is alleged that the 6th respondent has used his
political influence and obtained the transfer to a station of his
choice. Ext.P1 is a copy of the Guidelines. Clause 11(B) which is
relied on says that if there are applicants who have completed 3
years in a station and applicants who have not completed three
years, preference is to be given to persons who have completed 3
years. It further states that if a person who has completed three
years had earlier worked in the place to which he is transferred,
preference will be given to the person who has not completed 3
years. Clause 11(B) hence is not a bar for a person who has
completed 3 years, but it is only a Rule of preference. Clause 28
of the Guidelines says that a person who has worked as Melsanthi,
2025:KER:66298
WP(C) NO. 21436 OF 2025
Keezhsanthi or Sahasanthi in a Devaswom, can aspire for transfer
to the same Devaswom only after 3 years. The counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to preference over
the 6th respondent for transfer to Keraladhithyapuram Krishna
Swami Devaswom. Reference is made to Ext.P3, whereby the 6th
respondent was transferred from Keraladhithyapuram Krishna
Swami Devaswom to Krishanan Kovil Devaswom on his request,
to submit that he should not have been given preference for
appointment at Keraladhithyapuram Devaswom again.
3. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit.
It is stated that the 6th respondent was working under various
Groups namely Thrikkariyoor, Ambalapuzha, Vaikom, etc. and on
04.07.2024, he was appointed as Melsanthi in
Keraladhithyapuram Devaswom and worked there upto
31.01.2025. Thereafter, he was transferred to Krishnankovil
Devaswom, due to the retirement of the Melsanthi, who was
working in the said Devaswom. It is stated that he worked in
Krishnan Kovil from 01.02.2025 to 12.06.2025. He has produced
the application submitted by him during the general transfer,
wherein he had requested for transfer to Sreekrishnakovil Temple,
2025:KER:66298
WP(C) NO. 21436 OF 2025
Vaikom, Thrichatukulam Devaswom Board, Cherthala or
Udayamperoor Devaswom. It is stated that he was also not given
any of the said choices and he was appointed to
Keraladhithyapuram Devaswom and he joined there on
13.06.2025.
4. The petitioner has thereafter produced Ext.P5,
which is an order dated 30.05.2025. Since the document which
was originally produced as Ext.P5 was wrong, the petitioner has
also filed application to receive the correct document, which has
been allowed. As per Ext.P5, the appeal filed by the petitioner
against the transfer had been rejected. It can be seen from
Ext.P5 that the petitioner had contended that persons junior to
him were appointed in the places which he has chosen as second
and third options. As far as the first choice is concerned, he has
no such contention. The contentions are answered in the appeal
stating that as far as Thrichattukulam Devaswom is concerned, a
person who has not worked there was given preference and as far
as Keraladhithyapuram Devaswom is concerned, there was a
requirement to bring back the 6th respondent.
5. The Standing Counsel for the Devaswom has filed
2025:KER:66298
WP(C) NO. 21436 OF 2025
a statement producing Exts.R1(a), R1(b) and R1(c). It is stated
that the transfer of the 6th respondent to Krishnan Kovil
Devaswom was because of a requirement that arose due to the
retirement of the person who was working there and the order
specifically stated that it is subject to the General Transfer of
2025. It is submitted that the said order of transfer to Krishnan
Kovil Devaswom is not a regular transfer issued during the
general transfer and was a temporary arrangement.
6. Reference is made to Clause 16 of Ext.P1
Guidelines to submit that orders of transfer issued before and
after the General Transfer Orders will be subject to the orders
issued during the general transfer. It is also stated that while
transferring the 6th respondent to Krishnan Kovil Devaswom, it
was specifically stated in the order that it was a temporary
transfer and will not entitle him to make any claim regarding
station seniority or other considerations at the time of general
transfer.
7. It is settled law that transfer is an incidence of
service and the guidelines are not statutory in character so as to
give any absolute right. On a reading of Clause 11(B) and Clause
2025:KER:66298
WP(C) NO. 21436 OF 2025
28 of the Guidelines, the transfer of the 6 th respondent to
Keraladhithyapuram Devaswom cannot be said to be in violation
of the Guidelines. The transfer of the 6 th respondent to Krishnan
Kovil Devaswom has no real consequence since it was subject to
the general transfer. Even if there was no such transfer, since the
6th respondent was transferred to Keraladhithyapuram Devaswom
only on 02.07.2024 he could have remained there for 3 years till
2027.
In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the orders of transfer and the order rejecting the
appeal. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
Pn
2025:KER:66298
WP(C) NO. 21436 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21436/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF LATEST GUIDELINES FOR
TRANSFER VIDE R.O.C. NO. 1527/22/MIS-1
DATED 5-3- 2022
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.1315 DATED
16-4-2025 PASSED BY THE DEVASWOM
COMMISSIONER
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 268 DATED
24-1-2025 CONSIDERING APPLICATION DATED
20-1-2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 22-4-2025
BEFORE THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER AGAINST
EXHIBIT P2 ORDER OF TRANSFER
(*CORRECTED)
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ORDER VIDE
ROC NO. 24/2025/MIS-B DATED 30-5-2025
(*CORRECTED AS) TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF DEVASWOM
EXHIBIT P5 COMMISSIONER VIDE ORDER NO.ROC/18/25/S
DATED 30.05.2025 AS PER ORDER DATED
28.07.2025 IN I.A.1/2025.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY ME BEFORE THE DEVASWAM BOARD FOR
TRANSFER DATED 28.2.2025
ANNEXURE R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.268 DATED
24.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, VAIKOM
ANNEXURE R1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.300 DATED
28.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO
THE 6TH RESPONDENT
2025:KER:66298
WP(C) NO. 21436 OF 2025
ANNEXURE R1(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.301
DATED 28.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
