K. Dinesan and others v. Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathi Devaswom and Malabar Devaswom Board

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-01-14
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are allowed. The orders granting approval of the appointment of the petitioners shall be issued effective from the date of their appointment, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. No Costs.
Final Disposition: The writ petitions are allowed; approvals to be issued within one month and backdated to appointment date; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. Dinesan
A Jayanaran
A Unnikrishnan

Respondents

Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathí Devaswom represented by its Trustee
The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board
Malabar Devaswom Board represented by the Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. Rajendran
• Sri. P. Riji

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, SC
• Sri. Parthasarathy B, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 16392/2014 and 16647/2014) before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam concern the appointment approvals of employees of the Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathi Devaswom. The petitioners—K. Dinesan, A. Jayanaran, and A. Unnikrishnan—were engaged as a Pulverizer Operator and Plant Operators to operate a pulverizer and a wastewater treatment plant installed after Board sanction. The Board previously rejected approvals by Ext. P2 (18.08.2009), while a Division Bench decision (Ext. P3) noted the appointments were to lower categories and recommended ratification, effectively directing consideration and potential approval. The petitioners’ case is framed against the backdrop of Ext. P7 (2014), which again rejected approvals, and the reliance on earlier judgments that allegedly favored approval. The court observes that the petitioners’ assignments were sanctioned and that the Devaswom had invested substantial funds. It is argued that Ext. P7 would amount to contempt of the court’s earlier judgments, including the directions to approve. The court ultimately holds that the petitions are to be allowed, and the authorities are directed to issue approvals with retrospective effect from the appointment date within one month of certified copies of the judgment, with no costs. It emphasizes that the earlier decisions cover the present petitions and directs compliance accordingly.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the Board could not have rejected their approvals since this Court had favourable rulings in two earlier judgments directing consideration and potential approval; Ext. P7’s rejection, especially in light of Ext. P3’s directions, amounts to contempt of court. They assert that the pulverizer and wastewater plant projects were sanctioned and funded by the Devaswom, and staff was necessary for their operation; previous directives and the intent of ratification require granting approvals within a short timeframe.

Contentions of Respondents

The Devaswom Board argues that approval procedures were not properly followed and that appointments were not made transparently. While acknowledging the earlier judgments, counsel contends that the current petitions focus on whether the approval could be denied; they urge the court to examine the reasons for denial and to consider procedural propriety. However, the court notes that the petitioners’ issues are already covered by earlier decisions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bhanunni v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Dept.	2011 (4) KLT 230	Positive	Cited to illustrate that there were earlier judgments directing approval, with the present court noting that Ext. P7’s rejection would amount to contempt of that judgment.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/24TH POUSHA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 16392 of 2014 (Y)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS:** **---------------------** **1. K.DINESAN, PULVARISOR OPERATOR, SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM P.O. ANGADIPURAM 679 321, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT** **2. A JAYANARAYANAN, PLANT OPERATOR, SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM P.O. ANGADIPURAM 679 321, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT** **3. A UNNIKRISHNAN, PLANT OPERATOR, SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM P.O. ANGADIPURAM 679 321, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN SMT.P.RIJI** **RESPONDENTS:** - **------------------------** **1. SREE THIRUMANDHAMKUNNU BHAGAVATHI DEVASWOM REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, P.O. ANGADIPURAM 679 321, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT** **2. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALABAR DEVASWOM OFFICE, ERANHIPALAM - 673 019. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT** **3. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED B Y SECRETARY MALABAR DEVASWOM OFFICE, ERANHIPALAM - 673 019. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT** ## **R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC,** **MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD BY SRI.PARTHASARATHY.B, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 16647/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 16392 of 2014 (Y)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** - **P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.8.2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.08.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.21567/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.01.2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.08.2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.06.2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **P8: TRUE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 07.05.2015 BY THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **JJJ** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647 of 2014 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of January, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners in both the writ petitions are persons who were appointed in the respondent Devaswom, being the Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathi Devaswom. The 1[st] petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16647/2014 has already been granted approval. The other petitioners challenge the rejection of approval mainly on the contention that the Board could not have rejected such approval for reason of this Court having held in their favour in two separate judgments. 2. The 1[st] petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 16392/2014 was appointed as Pulverizer Operator and the 2[nd] and 3[rd] petitioners as Plant Operators in the respondent ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647/2014** **-2-** Devaswom. The same was necessitated since the Devaswom had purchased a Pulveriser, as had been sanctioned by the Board, evidenced by Ext.P1 produced in W.P.(C) No. 16392/2014 and also installed a waste water treatment plant, again with proper sanction. 3. The approval of appointment of the 1[st] petitioner, along with that of a sweeper, stood rejected by Ext.P2 dated 18.8.2009. But, however, there was pending a writ petition before a Division Bench, filed by the Trustee, wherein the approval was sought for the aforesaid appointments. Just two days after Ext.P2 order, Ext.P3 judgment was passed. A Division Bench of this Court found that the appointments made are to the lower category and was necessitated as explained in Ext.P12 produced in that writ petition. The Court also observed that it was a fit case for ratification and directed consideration which has now been done by ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647/2014** **-3-** Ext.P7 and rejected. Considering the specific observations in Ext.P3 the Board could not have rejected the approval, is the contention. 4. The petitioners 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) No.16392/2014 were appointed as Plant Operators to operate the waste water treatment plant installed by the Devaswom, again with proper sanction from the Board. It is also indicated from Ext.P6 that the Devaswom Board had also sanctioned two posts as per Ext.P4. A reading of Ext.P6 would indicate that an interview was conducted with a Government nominee and selection was made by proper procedure. The said issue was also the subject of a batch of writ petitions before the Devaswom Bench of this Court, in which there was a specific direction to approve the appointments made. The appointment of the 2[nd] ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647/2014** **-4-** petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16647/2014 also was in a like manner to the post of sweeper. The said judgment is reported in **Bhanunni v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Dept.** **- 2011 (4) KLT 230** . Ext.P7, rejecting approval to the said appointment, would also amount to a contempt of the judgment passed by this Court. 5. It is to be noticed that the petitioners, who were the employees, were not parties in the above writ petitions. Their cause was agitated before this Court by the Trustee, on behalf of the Devaswom, since their continuance was required for reason of the Pulverizer having been purchased and the water treatment plant having been installed. The documents produced would indicate that both the said activities were sanctioned by the Board and considerable amounts were spend by the ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647/2014** **-5-** Devaswom for purchasing the Pulverizer and installing the plant. The purchase and installation would be rendered futile if there are not appointed sufficient persons to operate the same. In any event, going by the decisions of this Court in the very same subject matter; cited herein above, Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No. 16392/2014, which is Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.16647/2014, shall stand set aside insofar as it affects the petitioners herein. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Devaswom Board, would, in fact, invite this Court to examine the reasons why the approval was not granted. The learned Counsel would say that the procedure of selection was not proper and that the appointments were not made in a transparent manner. However, there would be no necessity to go into such details, since, admittedly, the issue of the petitioners herein are covered by the earlier decisions of this Court. ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 16392 & 16647/2014** **-6-** The writ petitions are allowed. The orders granting approval of the appointment of the petitioners herein shall be issued effective from the date of their appointment, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. No Costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 15/1/16