High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-19Writ Petition Allowed; Ext.P10 Set Aside; reman...

M.S. Muraleedhara Warrier v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.291 OF 2021(J)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devān Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-03-19
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P10 set aside; remand for fresh consideration by the competent Authority of the Board with an opportunity to be heard to the petitioner (physically or via video conference); the order to be issued expeditiously and not later than one month from receipt of a copy of this judgment; contentions remain open for appropriate decision under extant rules.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition Allowed; Ext.P10 Set Aside; remanded for fresh consideration under extant rules with hearing; decision to be issued within one month; contentions kept open.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.S. Muraleedhara Warrier, S/o G. Sankara Warrier, Ragasudha, Thiruvananthapuram, etc. (Petitioner)

Respondents

Travancore Devaswom Board, Office of the Travancore Devaswom Board, Devaswom Building, Nandancode, Thiruvananthapuram-695003, represented by its Secretary
The Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, Office of the Devaswom Commissioner, Devaswom Buildings, Nandancode, Thiruvananthapuram-695003
The Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Office of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, Aranmula, Pathanamthitta-689533
The Chief Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Devaswom Board Headquarters, Devaswom Buildings, Nandancode, Thiruvananthapuram-695003

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri S. Subhash Chand

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri G. Biju (SC)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P10, an order issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board regarding the petitioner’s inter-departmental transfer and the related seniority/probation implications. The petitioner, who was initially posted in the maramath wing, was transferred to the Devaswom wing in 2015, after which the Board asserted that he must complete probation afresh for one year in the new cadre before his pay fixation could be reconsidered. The petitioner argued that Ext.P10 does not provide a reasoned basis for denying re-fixation from the date of his original probation, and that there are no explicit provisions justifying a second probation. The Respondents rely on Rule 8 of Ext.P11, which contends seniority in the Devaswom department should be reckoned from the date of appointment in that department, with probation completed in the relevant category. The Court noted that Ext.P10 is silent on these important aspects and, guided by established principles that an impugned order must be self-contained, proceeded to set aside Ext.P10. The Court allowed fresh consideration by the competent Board, after hearing the petitioner, and directed that a reasoned decision be issued expeditiously, not later than one month from receipt of the judgment. The judgment invokes Mohinder Singh Gill’s principle that a challenged order must stand on its own contents, without being supplemented by extraneous pleadings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 8 of Ext.P11: Rules Regarding Service Conditions of Devaswom Employees, 1970 (Travancore)Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (as discussed; Ext.P12 reference) and related Ext.P11 provisions

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

An impugned order must be supported by its own contents and cannot be augmented by pleadings (Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, 1978 (1) SCC 405)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends Ext.P10 was issued without explicit statutory basis for a fresh probation and pay fixation from the date of the initial probation in the maramath wing. He argues that Ext.P10 is silent on the reasons for the new probation requirement and that Ext.P11 does not authorize a second probation. He relies on Ext.P12 (Judgment) to emphasize that rules cannot be adopted by reference unless expressly incorporated and seeks setting aside Ext.P10 to allow fresh, rule-compliant reconsideration with hearing.

Contentions of Respondents

The Board’s standing counsel submits Ext.P10 was issued because the inter-departmental transfer necessitated one year of probation in the Devaswom department, and seniority must be reckoned from appointment in that department per Rule 8 of Ext.P11. He asserts that the petition should be dismissed and Ext.P10 sustained in light of Ext.P11 rules.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner	1978(1) SCC 405	Positive	Used to support the principle that an impugned order must be self-contained and based on its own contents, not augmented by later pleadings.
Ruling Report 2009(2)KHC 127	2009(2)KHC 127	Mentioned Only	Cited by the petitioner to buttress the proposition that rules cannot be adopted by reference in the absence of incorporation; the court references it but does not rely on it as a determining rule in the decision.

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 M.S. Muraleedhara Warrier v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.291 OF 2021(J)** ## **PETITIONER:** **M.S.MURALEEDHARA WARRIER, S/O.G.SANKARA WARRIER, RAGASUDHA, THIRUVANVANDOOR P.O., CHENGANNUR-689109. (HIGHER GRADE SUB GROUP OFFICER, BUDHANOOR SUB GROUP, ARANMULA GROUP).** **BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDING, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.** - **3 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689533.** - **4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.** **BY ADV. SRI.G.BIJU - SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 291/21 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner impugns Ext.P10 and his learned counsel – Sri.S.Subhash Chand, argues that even though his client had raised and impelled various contentions, same have not been answered at all by the Secretary of the Devaswom, while the said order has been issued. 2. Sri.Subhash Chand submits that his client was initially appointed incorrectly in the 'maramath' wing of the Devaswom and therefore, sought for an inter-departmental transfer, which was acceded to, he thus being posted in the said department on 31.12.2015, as is evident from Ext.P4. He submits that, however, on account of this transfer, the Board now takes the stand that his client has to complete probation in the Devaswom department afresh for a period of one year and therefore, that his request for re-fixation of WPC 291/21 3 pay and allowances from the date on which his original probation was declared in the 'maramath' wing cannot be acceded to. He added that Ext.P10 order does not say why the Board has taken such a stand, particularly when, to his client's knowledge, there are no specific provisions in the applicable Rules and Regulations, namely Ext.P11, which would allow a second probation to be declared in the manner as has been now said in Ext.P10. 3. Sri.Subhash Chand, therefore, prayed that Ext.P10 be set aside, especially because, in Ext.P12 judgment delivered by this Court, it has been clearly declared that unless there is incorporation or adoption, either expressly or by specific reference, the provisions of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules cannot be adopted for determining the seniority of the Devaswom Board employees. He, therefore, prayed that the reliefs sought WPC 291/21 4 for in this Writ Petition be granted. |4. The learned Standing Counsel for the| |---| |Travancore Devaswom Board – Sri.G.Biju, argued| |in support of Ext.P10 by saying, it is because| |the petitioner had asked for an inter-| |departmental transfer that he was granted the| |benefit in 2015 and therefore, it is essential| |that he completes the period of one year| |probation in the said post. He submitted that| |a counter affidavit has been filed on record,| |wherein, it has been averred that the service| |condition of the employees in the| |administrative establishments under the| |Devaswom Board are governed by Ext.P11 Rules| |and that as per Rule 8 thereof, his seniority| |can be reckoned only from the date of| |appointment in the department, for which he| |has to complete the probation in that| |category, namely as a Sub Group Officer –| |Grade II, in the Devaswom department. He,| WPC 291/21 5 therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 5. I have considered the afore submissions and have also examined the materials and pleadings available on record. 6. In Ext.P10, as rightly stated by Sri.Subhash Chand, the Board does not mention any provision of law, as per which, it is stipulated that the petitioner must have completed another period of probation after he was inter-departmentally transferred to the Devaswom wing. However, in the counter affidavit filed on record, they have tried to explain this based on Ext.P11 Rules. They assert that as per Rule 8 thereof, seniority of a person in the Devaswom department can be reckoned only from the date of appointment in the said department and that he/she has to complete probation in the category to which he/she has been appointed, which, in this case WPC 291/21 6 is Sub Group Officer – Grade II. 7. However, Ext.P10 is completely silent on the afore aspects; and am, therefore, of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Board appropriately. I am persuaded to the afore opinion because it is well settled through a catena of judgments of this Court and that of the Honourable Supreme Court, beginning from **Mohinder Singh Gill v.** **Chief Election Commissioner** [1978(1) SCC 405], that an impugned order will have to be supported by its own contents and cannot be bettered by the pleadings placed on record, when litigations are impelled against it. In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P10, so as to pave way for a fresh consideration of the matter by the competent Authority of the Board; which shall be done after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner – WPC 291/21 7 either physically or through video conferencing – thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that since I have not considered the rival contentions of the parties on its merits, but have only set aside Ext.P10 for the reasons above, all contentions are left open to be pursued appropriately as and when the afore exercise is completed and the Board will be at liberty to take an apposite decision, based on the extant Rules and Regulations, untrammelled by any of the above observations. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR ## **JUDGE** WPC 291/21 8 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.ROC1045/87/EST. DATED 31.01.2015 OF RESPONDENT NO.2. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER NO.382 DATED 11.02.2015 OF RESPONDENT NO.4. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD LOW PAID EMPLOYEE'S APPOINTMENT AS CLERK/SUB GROUP OFFICER RULES, 1990. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING ROC 13669/15/EST. DATED 01.12.2015 OF RESPONDENT NO.2. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.ROC 11/16/EST.(A) DATED 14.02.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING ROC NO.80/18/EST.(A) DATED 06.06.2018 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING ROC NO.15417/2011/EST-C DATED 17.02.2020 OF RESPONDENT NO.2. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 06.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08.07.2020 IN W.P.(C)NO.13701/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02.11.2020 BEARING ROC NO.6742/2020/EST-II PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF RULES REGARDING SERVICE CONDITIONS OF DEVASWOM EMPLOYEES, 1970 (TRAVANCORE) WPC 291/21 9 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RULING REPORT 2009(2)KHC 127.