GANESAN.B.V v. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 24684 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` GANESAN.B.V AGED 58 YEARS ``` ``` S/O.B.VENKITARAMANA THANTHRI, KIZHAKKE NEDUMPILLIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGOM, TRIPUNITHURA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682301, WORKING AS MELSANTHI, VYTTILA SIVASUBRAHMANYA TEMPLE, VYTTILA DEVASWOM IN ``` ``` TRIPUNITHURA GROUP UNDER THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, PIN - 682301 ``` ## **`BY ADV P.U.SHAILAJAN`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680001`** ``` 2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 680001 ``` ``` R BY SRI. K. P. SUDHEER, SC, CDB ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 W.P.(C)No.24684 of 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner, who is presently working as Santhi in Vyttila Sivasubrahmanya Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 1[st] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the condition stipulated in Ext.P2 notification dated 25.06.2024, which provides that Santhies, who have been punished during the last 10 years of their service, will not be considered for the post of Melsanthi and Keezhanthi in Melkkavu and Melsanthies in Keezhkkavu, Sivan and Sasthavu temples at Chottanikkara Devi Temple. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept Ext.P2 [Sic: Ext.P3] application and permit him to participate in the screening/ interview as stated in Ext.P2 for the aforesaid posts. 2. On 12.07.2024, when this writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board that a similar matter is pending before the Devaswom Bench in DBA No.78 of 2007. Therefore, the Registry was directed to post this matter along with that case, after obtaining orders from the 3 W.P.(C)No.24684 of 2024 Honourable the Chief Justice, if necessary. Thereafter, the matter is listed before this Court based on the orders of the Honourable the Acting Chief Justice on 18.07.2024. 3. On 22.07.2024, when this matter came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court **E.M. Narayanan Namboothiri v. Cochin Devaswom Board and others [2013:KER:25209]** . The learned Standing Counsel also pointed out the order of the Apex Court dated 30.11.2015 in SLP(C)No.24231 of 2013, arising out that judgment and that DBA No.78 of 2007 has already been disposed of by the order of this Court dated 19.07.2024. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for the respondents. 5. The amendment made to clause 12 of Appointment and Transfers of Santhi Rules – Chottanikkara Temple – Chottanikkara Devaswom was the subject matter in DBP No.1 of 2013, which was registered based on CDB Report No.1 of 2013 filed by the learned Ombudsman in a petition filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board seeking approval for that amendment. That DBP was considered along with W.P.(C)No.29723 of 2012, a writ 4 W.P.(C)No.24684 of 2024 petition filed by a Melsanthi of a temple under the Cochin Devaswom Board. He was aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board, whereby he was informed that he is not eligible for appointment to the post of Melsanthi in Chottanikkara Bhagavathi Temple. That DBP was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed by the judgment dated 03.07.2013. By allowing DBP No.1 of 2013 this Court accorded sanction for the amendment of clause 12 of Appointment and Transfers of Santhi Rules – Chottanikkara Temple – Chottanikkara Devaswom and dismissed the writ petition. Paragraphs 23 to 26 of that judgment read thus; “23. True that in Clause 12 of Ext.P5 it is specified that “Those once selected and posted for these posts will be included again in the list of Santhikars for drawing lot for the new terms”. But Clause 12 will have to be read in its entirety. In the opening portion of the said rule it is clearly stated that “before getting the names included in the list of Santhikars for drawing lots they should get certified by the thanthries at Chottanikkara Temple to the effect that they (the Santhikars) are fit for working in the Chottanikkara Temple” It cannot be said that merely because of previous experience in the said Temple, any of the A grade Santhies can be automatically included for selection and be allowed to participate. Therefore, we find nothing wrong in the said system. The provisions are not arbitrary or discriminatory. 24. Apart from the same, in the order in DBA No.78 of 5 W.P.(C)No.24684 of 2024 2007 similar arguments have been repelled by this court earlier. In the common judgment in W.P.(C) No.26251 of 2003 and connected cases dated 04.09.2003 the very same issues have been considered by this Court. With regard to the contention that the necessity to obtain certificate from the Thanthries, has to be done away with, in para 9 the Division Bench has held as follows: “9. Question is whether Clause 12 of the guidelines is valid or not. So far as this Clause is concerned, it deals with Chottanikkara Bhagavathi Temple. Chottanikkarra Bhagavathi Temple occupies a unique place in the list of Temples under the Cochin Devaswom Board. It goes without saying that this Temple attracts a lot of devotees and this Temple has got a prominent position among the Temples. Probably, it is due to the difference in the rituals that interview is being conducted before a person appointed was transferred to the Chottanikkara Bhagavathi Temple. Hence, we cannot say that the method mentioned in Clause 12 is not correct. Another attack made on Clause 12 is that it is not necessary to obtain certificate from the thanthris. We don't agree with. It is not an interview. It is only to certify to find out whether the proposed Melsanthi performs rituals in the Temple. It cannot say that this condition is bad. The names of the persons, who have been certified by the Thanthris are put in a lot. Selection is made on the basis of the lot. According to us, this method cannot be said to be illegal. Same method is adopted for the selection of Melsanthis in the Sabarimala and the Guruvayoor Temples.” With regard to the argument that persons who have already worked as Melsanthies in Chottanikkara Temple need not get certificates from Thanthries, also, the Bench 6 W.P.(C)No.24684 of 2024 rejected the same as evident from para 10 by holding as follows: “We do not think this argument can be accepted. If they had already been Melsanthies of Chottanikkara Bhagavathy Temple, it will not be difficult for them to get certificate from the Thanthries.” In the light of the above, as Clause 12 of the Rules has been upheld by this Court and similar contentions have been rejected, we do not find any reason to differ from the above view. The said judgments have stood the test of time. 25. In the decision relied upon by Shri M.P. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition, viz. **Union of India v. S. Srinivasan's case [(2012) 7 SCC 683]** various tests for considering the validity of the rules, have been laid down in paragraphs 21 and 32. It is held that “if a rule goes beyond rule-making power conferred by the parent statute or supplants any provision for which power is not conferred, it becomes ultra vires.” But we are of the view that the said principle will not apply in respect of Section 122(2)(e) of the Act as there is ample rule making power with regard to Temple employees also. 26. We therefore allow DBP No.1 of 2013 and sanction is accorded for the amendment of Clause 12 of Appointment and Transfer of Santhi Rules - Chottanikkara Temple - Chottanikkara Devaswom and we dismiss W.P.(C)No. 29723 of 2012.” 6. The judgment of this Court dated 03.07.2013 in W.P.(C)No.29723 of 2012 was under challenge before the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.24231 of 2013. When that matter came up for 7 W.P.(C)No.24684 of 2024 consideration before the Apex Court on 30.11.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner does not want to press the Special Leave Petition. Accordingly, by the order dated 30.11.2015, that Special Leave Petition was dismissed as not pressed and consequently, the interim order was vacated. 7. After arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition in view of the aforesaid judgment dated 03.07.2013 in DBP No.1 of 2013 and W.P.(C)No.29723 of 2012. Based on the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE** AV/23/7 8 W.P.(C)No.24684 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24684/2024`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 23.9.2021 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 25.6.2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTS SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.7.2024 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT NO.EL465626660IN DATED 4.7.2024 ```