Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with directions as ab...

Manu Mohan and Mohanan K.K. v. Village Officer Kadannappalli, Tahsildar Payyanur, Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, Guruvayur Devaswom Board, Rajith A.K. and Addl. R6 Revenue Divisional Officer

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.1760/2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2022-02-18
Court Decision / Holding
The court disposed of the writ petition with directions: (1) Directing the Additional 6th Respondent to consider Ext. P9 and pass appropriate orders after providing an opportunity of hearing to the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent, and to do so expeditiously, within two weeks of receipt of a copy of the judgment; (2) Keeping the status quo on the appointment order based on Ext. P4 until final orders are passed in Ext. P9; (3) Reserving all contentions for consideration by the Additional 6th Respondent in the pending matter.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions as above; status quo on appointment maintained pending Ext. P9 outcome; further arguments to be heard by the Additional 6th Respondent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Manu Mohan
  • Mohanan K.K.

Respondents

  • Village Officer Kadannappalli, Kannur District (PIN-670 306)
  • Tahsildar, Payyanur, Kannur District (PIN-670 307)
  • Secretary, Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom Board, Guruvayur
  • Rajith A.K., S/o Late Jayaramakrishnan A., Kozhikode
  • Additional R6 Revenue Divisional Officer, Talipparamba, Kannur District (Impleaded)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • M. V. Amaresan
  • • S. S. Aravind

Counsels for Respondents

  • • V. John Mani
  • • S. Jayan
  • • Jackson Johny
  • • Varghese Sabu
  • • Sethulakshmi K.K.
  • • Diana Laurence Paul
  • • T. K. Vipindas (for R4)
  • • V. V. Nandagopal Nambiar (for R3)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petition WP(C) No.1760/2022 before the Kerala High Court (Single Judge: P. V. Kunhikrishnan) concerns the recruitment process for the Guruvayur Devaswam Board under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota. The petitioners, Manu Mohan and Mohanan K.K., challenge the legality of the income-certification and reservation-related decisions that affected their ranking and appointment. Exhibit P1 is a recruitment notification dated 29.02.2020 issued by the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB) under which the petitioners sought the post of RMO under the EWS category, asserting their monthly income as on the date of notification was Rs. 20,219. Exhibit P5 issued by the 1st respondent purportedly certified the petitioners’ income, which assisted them in securing Rank No.1 under EWS for the recruitment. A complaint by the 5th respondent led to the recall of Exhibit P5 by Ext. P8. The 1st petitioner then filed Ext. P9 (appeal) before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The court, after hearing the parties, directed that the matter be kept in status quo regarding the appointment and directed the Additional R6 RDO to consider Ext. P9, after providing hearing to the petitioners and 5th respondent, and to pass final orders expeditiously, within two weeks. The decision leaves all contentions open for further arguments before the RDO while ensuring that the appointment order remains in abeyance pending Ext. P9 outcome.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contended that the relief sought by mandamus should direct the 1st respondent to act on Ext. P7 and decide based on petitioners’ monthly income as on the date of Ext. P1 notification (29.02.2020). They submitted that the income status for EWS reservation must be computed as on the P1 notification date, not on the date of the income certificate application. They asserted that Ext. P5 income certificate, though valid, was utilized to their disadvantage due to the subsequent recall by Ext. P8 after a complaint by the 5th respondent. They urged that the 1st respondent should not invalidate/recall Ext. P5 until Ext. P7 is decided and that the 4th respondent’s appointment of the 1st petitioner should remain intact pending Ext. P9 outcome. They sought expeditious decision-making and protective orders to prevent irreparable loss.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the actions taken, including Ext. P8 recall of Ext. P5 following the complaint by the 5th respondent, and argued that final adjudication of Ext. P9 should precede any modification of appointment orders. They contended that the grievance of the 5th respondent warranted scrutiny and that the appellant’s (4th respondent) appointment, based on the contested certificate, required careful consideration. They urged the court to ensure due process by hearing the petitioners and the 5th respondent before passing final orders and to maintain status quo until the appeal (Ext. P9) is resolved, to avert potential adverse consequences for the Devaswom administration and the next in rank in the petitioner’s slate.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Manu Mohan and Mohanan K.K. v. Village Officer Kadannappalli, Tahsildar Payyanur, Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, Guruvayur Devaswom Board, Rajith A.K. and Addl. R6 Revenue Divisional Officer and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 1760 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - `1 MANU MOHAN AGED 29 YEARS S/O. MOHANAN.K.K., MANU NIVAS, 142/13, VILAYANCODE, PAYYANNUR TALUK, KADANNAPPALLI VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 504` - `2 MOHANAN.K.K., MANU NIVAS, 142/13, VILAYANCODE, PAYYANNUR TALUK, KADANNAPPALLI VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 504` ``` BY ADVS. M.V.AMARESAN S.S.ARAVIND ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 VILLAGE OFFICER KADANNAPPALLI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 306` - `2 TAHSILDAR, PAYYANJUR, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 307` - `3 SECRETARY, KERALA DEVASWOM RECRUITMENT BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, OPP.GOVT.AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695 001` - `4 THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM BOARD, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, SOUTH NADA, EAST NADA, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 101` ``` 5RAJITH.A.K., S/O. LATE JAYARAMAKRISHNAN.A., SUKRUTHAM HOUSE, THOOVAKKOD P.O., CHEMMANCHERI VIA, KOZHIKODE, PIN- 673 304 ``` **2** ## **W.P.(C).No.1760/2022** ``` ADDL.R6 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, REVENUE TOWER, COURT ROAD, TALIPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN - 670 141 [ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/2/22 IN I.A:1/22 IN WP(C) 1760/22] BY ADVS. V.JOHN MANI S.JAYANT JACKSON JOHNY VARGHESE SABU SETHULAKSHMI K.K. DIANA LAURANCE PAUL ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP, SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS FOR R4, SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR FOR R3 ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C).No.1760/2022** **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------W.P.(C).No.1760 of 2022** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of February, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed with following prayers: i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or orders directing the 1[st] respondent to act on Exhibit P7 and to take decision thereon based on the monthly income of the petitioners as on the date of Exhibit P1 notification, within a time frame. ii. To declare that income status of the petitioner to avail E.W.S reservation for Exhibit P1 recruitment is the income of the petitioners as on the date of Exhibit P1 notification and not the date of petitioner's application for income certificate. iii. To further direct the 1[st] respondent, not to invalidate/ recall/cancel Exhibit P5 income certificate validly issued by him, till a decision is taken on Exhibit P7. iv. To direct the respondents No.3 and 4 not to invalidate/recall/cancel Exhibit P4 appointment order issued to the 1[st] petitioner. v. To grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (SIC) **4** ## **W.P.(C).No.1760/2022** 2. Exhibit P1 is a notification issued by 3[rd] respondent for recruitment to various posts in 4[th] respondent Guruvayur Devaswam. Exhibit P1 is dated 29.02.2020. The 1[st] petitioner applied for the post of R.M.O. He claimed reservation under Economically Weaker Section (E.W.S) quota. According to the petitioners, their monthly income during the period of Ext.P1 notification was Rs.20,219/-. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1[st] respondent issued Ext.P5 income certificate correctly noting the same, but with a slight variation. The 1[st] petitioner, after the qualifying written test and interview, was placed Rank No.1 under E.W.S quota. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1[st] petitioner was given advice by the 3[rd] respondent and later the 4[th] respondent issued Ext.P4 appointment letter. The 5[th] respondent, who is next to the 1[st] petitioner in Ext.P3 rank list, submitted a complaint before the 1[st] respondent contending that the petitioners’ income exceeds the limit prescribed for E.W.S reservation and hence Ext.P5 income certificate issued to the 1[st] petitioner is wrong and requested to recall Ext.P5. Based on that, the 2[nd] respondent passed Ext.P8 order by which Ext.P5 is recalled. Aggrieved by Ext.P8, the 1[st] petitioner filed Ext.P9 before the additional 6[th] **5** ## **W.P.(C).No.1760/2022** respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that before taking a decision on Ext.P9, the appointment order issued to the 1[st] petitioner will be cancelled by the Devaswom Authorities. Hence this writ petition. 3. It is stated that even though the appointment order is received by the 1[st] petitioner, he sought time from the authorities to produce E.W.S. certificate and hence, if final orders are not passed in Ext.P9 appeal by the 6[th] respondent, there will be irreparable loss to the petitioners. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned counsel for 3[rd] respondent, learned Standing Counsel for the 4[th] respondent and also the learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent. 5. It is an admitted fact that as per Ext.P8 order, Ext.P5 is already recalled. It is also an admitted fact that the 1[st] petitioner filed Ext.P9 appeal against Ext.P8 order. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 10.02.2022, this Court passed an order of status quo till 15.02.2022. The same was extended on 15.02.2022, till this date. The grievance of the petitioners is that if the appeal is not **W.P.(C).No.1760/2022** **6** considered, the Devaswom authorities will recall the appointment order issued to the 1[st] petitioner in the light of Ext.P8. The learned counsel for the 5[th] respondent submitted that the 5[th] respondent filed W.P.(C). No.30183 of 2021 and he has got a grievance against the issuance of appointment order to the 1[st] petitioner. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there can be a direction to the additional 6[th] respondent to consider Ext.P9 and there can be a direction to continue the status quo order regarding the appointment of the 1[st] petitioner till final orders are passed in Ext.P9 appeal. The additional 6[th] respondent will also give an opportunity of hearing to the 1[st] petitioner and the 5[th] respondent before passing final orders in the appeal. All the contentions of the 5[th] respondent are left open and he can raise all those contentions in W.P.(C). No. 30183 of 2021. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: 1. The additional 6[th] respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P9 in accordance to law, after giving an **7** ## **W.P.(C).No.1760/2022** opportunity of hearing to the 1[st] petitioner and the 5[th] respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 2. Till final orders are passed in Ext.P9, the order of status quo regarding the appointment based on Ext.P4 will continue. 3. All the contentions of the petitioners and the - 5[th] respondent are left open and they can raise all their contentions before the additional 6[th] respondent. JV sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **8** ## **W.P.(C).No.1760/2022** ## APPENDIX OF WPC 1760/2022 ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` - `Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.583/R1/KDRB/2019 DATED 29.01.2020 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 21.02.2020 PLACED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 29.10.2021 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT LETTER BEARING NO.B1-7661/2014 DATED 3.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF INCOME CERTIFICATE BEARING N.88/2021 DATED 01.11.2021 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE BEARING NO.G414196/2021 DATED 03.01.2022 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P6A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 06.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2022` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.G414196/2021 DATED 07/01/2022 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.D.O., TALIPARAMBA AGAINST EXHIBIT P8 ON 07/02/2022.` - `Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE BEARING NO.1710/R2/2021/KDRB DATED 05/02/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY EMAIL DATED 07/02/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`