Abhilash M.N. And Another v. Devaswom Commissioner And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/24TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 24989 of 2009 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. ABHILASH.M.N, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAPANICKER, MALIYEKKAL PUTHAN VEEDU AYMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.
2. NARAYANAPANICKER, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAPANICKER, MALIYEKKAL PUTHAN VEEDU AYMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOTTAYAM.
3. SUB GROUP OFFICER, AYMANAM DEVASWOM OFFICE, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM, BOARD AYMANAM, KOTTAYAM.
4. B.VINOD, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PANICKER, THINAKKEVAYALIL AYMANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM.
R,R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) R,R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL R,R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 24989 of 2009 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DT 31.05.1994 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER DT NIL EXT.P3: A COPY OF THE LETTER DT 1.2.2008 EXT.P4: A COPY OF THE LETTER DT 19.02.2008 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 22615/2008 DTD 28.7.2008 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.24989 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of September, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are aggrieved with the continuance of the 4th respondent as a "Karanma Sambandhi" in Ayamanam Sree Narasimha Temple, Kottayam. The 2nd petitioner, the father of the 1st petitioner was admittedly holding the post and superannuated on 31.05.1994, when the Sub Group Officer of the Board, the 3rd respondent herein, by Ext.P1 directed him to make a nomination from the family. By Ext.P2, the 2nd petitioner nominated the 4th respondent, his sister's son.
2. The 4th respondent was appointed regularly to the post. The 4th respondent however, was terminated from service in the year 2008 and by Ext.P3, again the 3rd respondent asked for a nomination from the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner then, nominated the 1st petitioner. Admittedly, at that point of time, the 1st petitioner had not attained majority. The 1st petitioner was
: 2 :
asked by the Board to produce certificate in proof of age. As is stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit the 1st petitioner was directed to produce the documents establishing "Karanma Sambandhi" right of the family, certificate from Tahsildar that the 2nd petitioner is the senior most male member of the "Karanma" family and the nomination from the senior most member in a stamp paper as also conduct certificate and age proof. The 1st petitioner or the 2nd petitioner failed to produce any of the said documents.
3. While the matter was pending so, the 4th respondent moved this Court with an application for consideration of a representation which was directed by Ext.P5. On consideration of the representation, the 4th respondent was reinstated in service on 13.07.2009 as per Ext.R4(B). Though the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not been a party to the proceedings, the petitioner was send out of service on the 4th respondent being reinstated. Necessarily, if the petitioner had such a contention, the
: 3 :
petitioner ought to have challenged the reinstatement of the 4th respondent.
4. The contention that Ext.P2 was a temporary arrangement cannot be countenanced, since there is no provision for making such a temporary arrangement unless the absence of the "Karanma Sambandhi" is of a temporary nature.
5. Herein the 2nd petitioner was superannuated on 31.05.1994 and the 2nd petitioner could have nominated only a major member of the family to be appointed as Karanma Sambandhi. The 2nd petitioner having nominated the 4th respondent cannot take a contention that the said nomination was only for a period till the 2nd petitioner's son, the 1st petitioner attained majority. Though the 1st petitioner could have taken a contention that the 1st petitioner was appointed on a nomination made properly, when the 4th respondent was terminated, it is to be noticed that the 1st petitioner's appointment in 2008 was irregular insofar as he had not attained majority at that point of time and
: 4 :
had not produced the documents directed to be produced. Hence the 1st petitioner's appointment cannot be said to be regularly effected.
For all the reasons stated above, writ petition is devoid of merit and the same would stand dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge