P.T.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI v. THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED, ERANHIPPALAM KOZHIKODE - 673020 & Ors.

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ KUMAR, SC R3 & R4 BY SRI. P. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, STATE ATTORNEY R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN R6 BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 12973/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 11080 of 2012 (H) PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : APPENDIX EXT.P1 EXT.P2 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEME FRAME OF ADMINISTRATION OF TTK DEVASWOM. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 20/8/2011. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST DATED 29/12/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR POLICE PROTECTION. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/12/2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 13/4/2012 IN WPC.34687/2011. EXT.P6 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/9/2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN 'MATHRUBHUMI' DAILY DATED 13/4/2012. EXT.P8 13/4/2012. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN 'HINDU' DAILY DATED EXT.P9 DEVASWOM NOTICE BOARD. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13/4/2012 PUBLISHED THE EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST CANDIDATES. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/4/2012 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS SHOWING DESPATCH OF THE NOTICES TO THE CANDIDATES. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/4/2012 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 27/4/2012 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/4/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28/4/2012 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30/4/2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R2(a) COMMISSIONER, KASARGODE. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 2/1/2012 OF THE ASSISTANT EXT.R2(b) MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD. TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 15/10/2010 ISSUED BY THE (Contd...) WP(C).No. 11080 of 2012 (H) EXT.R2(c) RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/4/2012 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND EXT.R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/5/2012 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(e) TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.R5(a) MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD. TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 15.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & K.Vinod Chandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.11080 of 2012-H & WP(C).No.12973 of 2012-V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of June, 2012. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. Judgment

1.The President of the TTK Devaswom has filed WP (C).No.11080 of 2012 challenging the stand taken by the Malabar Devaswom Board that the notification published by TTK Devaswom inviting applications for appointment of Executive Officer is not in consonance with Ext.R2(b) circular issued by the MDB. The fact of the matter remains that in an earlier round, this Court had recorded the need to follow that circular and also the assurance of TTK Devaswom that it would abide by the said circular in the matter of selection and appointment of Executive Officer. WPC11080 & 12973/12 -: 2 :-

2.Though this writ petition is couched as if there are serious objections and law and order situation created by some local people, including members of DYFI and that the decision of the MDB calling upon TTK Devaswom to recall its notification is bad, the fundamental issue is as to whether the notification issued by the MDB and published in the local newspaper and placed on record here as Ext.P7 is in conformity with the requirements of Ext.R2(b) circular. The first among the conditions imposed as per Ext.R2(b) circular is that the invitation of applications for selection has to be notified in a newspaper having circulation in the district where the temple concern is situated. That notification has to show the category to which selection is made, the pay scale and the age limit in terms of laws. Such notification has also to be published in the local village office, grama panchayat office, Assistant Commissioner's Notice Board and on the temple notice board.

3.Contrasting Ext.P7 notification that was published in the newspaper and the aforesaid condition no.1 WPC11080 & 12973/12 -: 3 :- in Ext.R2(b), it can be seen that the pay scale has not been notified in Ext.P7. The relaxation in age as available to candidates eligible for such relaxation on grounds of reservation, that is to say, support in favour of SC/SC and OBC, is also not stated in the notification. The contesting fifth respondent has the contention in the counter affidavit that the entire exercise is a camouflage to ensure the selection and appointment of a person mentioned in that counter affidavit. There is also the submission of the fifth respondent that there is a concerted effort to ensure that the appointee comes from Brahmin community only. We keep aside those issues for the time being and focus on the issue whether the notification is in terms of the requirement of Ext.R2(b) circular.

4.As already noted, two essential ingredients are not available in Ext.P7 notification. Pay scale is not mentioned. Relaxation in age for certain categories is also not mentioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in Exts.P7 and P8, it has been stated that further information can be gathered from the office of the Devaswom. WPC11080 & 12973/12 -: 4 :- Ext.P9 is stated to be a notification available in the TTK Devaswom office. That includes the provisions relating to age relaxation, pay scales etc. In our view, the requirement of the circular is that all the relevant details as are stated in clause 1 of that circular have to be mentioned in the notification. That clause does not conceive of two notifications. The notification in terms of clause 1 of Ext.R2(b) circular has to be published in a local newspaper having circulation in the district concerned. The copy of that notification has also to be affixed and made available in the notice boards mentioned in that clause in Ext.R2(b) circular. The reason for making such a condition can be easily gathered. However, we need not dwell deep on that, because Ext.R2(b) is issued by MDB authorities with jurisdiction. It was also conceded to by the petitioner that they would abide by the requirements of Ext.R2(b). Under such circumstances, we are clear in our mind that Exts.P7 and P8 are not issued in accordance with Ext.R2(b) and further selection on the basis of those notifications cannot go on. We, therefore, uphold the objection taken by MDB and direct that WPC11080 & 12973/12 -: 5 :- the TTK Devaswom may re-notify the invitation for applications, however that any applications already received in terms of Exts.P7 and P8 can also be considered along with those applications. The rectified notification shall also be published appropriately. The selection process, including the constitution of the Selection Committee shall be in terms of Ext.R2(b).

5.In view of the above, petitioner in WPC.No.11080 of 2012 is not entitled to any relief. That writ petition stands dismissed. WPC.No.12973 of 2012 does not survive the verdict in WPC.No.11080 of 2012. The same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice. Judge. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Sha/050612 K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.