Prashanth G Namboothiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR** **TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 9271 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **PRASHANTH.G.NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 35 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN NAMBOOTHIRI, NEELAMANADEVINIVAS, KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA - 690 103 BY ADVS.SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SHRI.JESUDASAN K X SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN SMT.SNEHA ROSE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 016** **2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 016** **BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SC, TDB** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **S.RAJMOHAM SC.TDB** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.9271 of 2019** ## **-:2:-** ## J U D G M E N T ## P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Clause 4 of Ext.P3 norms/notifications issued by the Devaswom Board for selection of Melsanthi to the Sabarimala temple. The said Clause stipulating 10 years experience as mandatory is unconscionable, according to the petitioner and that the same has virtually kept the petitioner away from the zone of consideration, which is highly arbitrary and likely to be interdicted by this Court. 2. The prayers are in the following terms: - i. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the condition stipulated in clause 4 of Exhibit P3 to the extent it insist that the applicant, to the post of Malshanti at Sabarimala/Malikappuram temples, shall have ten years of service in a temple having daily three time pooja. - ii. To issue a writ of Mandamus of any other writ, order or direction directing the 1[st] respondent to review the condition in Clause 4 of Exhibit P3 granting relaxation for qualified hands from the ten years service to be appointed as Melshanti at Sabarimala. - iii. To issue a writ of Mandamus of any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider Exhibit P4 representation and to review Clause 4 in Exhibit P3 **WP(C).No.9271 of 2019** ## **-:3:-** ## AND iv. To issue such other writs, orders, directions including orders deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3. We heard Sri.S. Krishnamoorthi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S. Rajmohan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Devaswom Board. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner is a highly qualified poojari, having acquired degrees from different institutions, besides some diploma in traditional architecture and has completed the 'Thantraratnam' course from the 'Thantric Vidyapeedam', Aluva. He is aged 35 years and is having experience as a qualified Santhi by serving in different temples. It is stated that he was desirous of making an application to the post of Melsanthi in Sabarimala. But, by virtue of clause 4 of Ext.P3, he is not in a position to participate in the contest and hence the challenge. 5. The learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board submits that there is absolutely no merit or bona fides in the challenge raised by the petitioner. The **WP(C).No.9271 of 2019** ## **-:4:-** idea and understanding of the petitioner as to the stipulation issued by the Board is also totally wrong and misconceived. It is not insisted by the Board that the experience shall be in a particular temple. The disputed clause only says that, out of the total of 12 years' experience, 10 years shall be as a Melsanthi in a temple of the specified type/grade, where three poojas are held with opening of the temple twice a day, (in the morning as well as in the evening). The said clause reads as follows: “øIí çÈø¢ È¿ ÄáùKßøßAáKÄá¢, ÎâKá Éâ¼µZ ©UÄá¢, ®ÜïÞ ÆßÕØÕᢠæÉÞÄá¼ÈBZAí ÆVÖÈJßÈí ¥ÕØø¢ ÈWµáKÄáÎÞÏ çfdÄJßçÜÞ/çfdÄB{ßçÜÞ ¦æµ ÉdLIí ÕV×B{ßW, ÉJá ÕV×B{ßW Äá¿VºîÏÞÏß çÎWÖÞLßåçØÕÈ¢ È¿JßÏßGáU ÕcµñßÏÞÏßøßAâ.å¥çÉfµX ÌtáA{áæ¿ ÖÕØ¢ØíµÞø dµßϵZçÉÞÜáU µÞøcBZAÞÏß ÄÞWAÞÜßµÎÞÏß ÖÞLß ç¼ÞÜßÏßW ÈßKᢠÕßGí ÈßWçAIßÕøáK µÞÜÏ{Õí ØíÅÜ¢ ÎÞxçJçÏÞ ÉáÄßÏ ÈßÏÎÈçJçÏÞ Äá¿VKí ØVÕîàØßW ©IÞµáK ÄÞWAÞÜßµ ÕßøÞ΢, ¯æÄCßÜᢠÄdLßçÏÞæ¿ÞMÎáU ÉøßÖàÜÈ µÞÜÏ{ÕßæÜ ÉøÎÕÇß ÎâKá ÎÞØ¢ ®KßÕ Äá¿VºîÏÞÏ ØVÕîàØí µÃAÞAáçOÞZ ÕßGá ÈßK µÞÜÎÞÏß µÃAÞAáKÄÜï.åµâ¿ÞæÄ øIí çÎWÖÞLßÎÞV ÎÞØ¢ ÎÞùÞ¿ß ÕcÕØñÏßW ç¼ÞÜßæºÏîáK çfdÄB{ßW µàÝíÖÞLßÏÞÏß ç¼ÞÜß çÈÞçAIÄÞÏß ÕçKAÞÕáK µÞÜÏ{ÕᢠdÉØñáÄ ÉJá ÕV×¢ µÃAÞAáKÄßÈí Éøß·ÃßAáKÄÞÃí.” **WP(C).No.9271 of 2019** ## **-:5:-** 6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, somewhat similar grievance was projected by another person before this Court in last year, by way of W.P.(C) No.31974 of 2018. The matter was dealt with elaborately and final verdict was passed on 12[th] October, 2018, repelling the challenge and dismissing the writ petition. A copy of the said verdict is placed for perusal of this Court. 7. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the so called grievance of the petitioner is not liable to be entertained, in view of the fact that, it is within the prerogative of the employer to stipulate the qualification and experience necessary for the post in question. As such, the stipulation made by the Devaswom Board for selection of 'Melsanthi' in Sabarimala is not a matter for this Court to interfere and dictate terms, in so far as, it is not arbitrary or illegal. That apart, the issue is covered by the Ruling rendered by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us, (Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon) was also a member, in Writ Petition No.31974 of 2018 ( Rajesh J. Potty v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2018 (5) KHC 220]). **WP(C).No.9271 of 2019** ## **-:6:-** 8. It is also relevant to note that the challenge raised is against is Clause 4 of Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is dated 24.07.2018, i.e., in respect of the selection for the year 1194 ME. The selection pursuant to the said notification is already over. The Melsanthi has already taken charge. This being the position, the proceedings set in motion by the Devaswom Board pursuant to Ext.P3 notification, have reached logical conclusion. No interference is possible on this ground as well. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, since this is a recurring instance, stipulating similar terms also in the years to come, the grievance of the petitioner has been projected before the Devaswom Board by filing Ext.P4 representation. The learned counsel seeks for a direction to be given to the Devaswom Board to consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders. This Court is not at all impressed with the said submission, as we are not sure whether similar stipulation will be there in the next year. Secondly, if at all any such stipulation is there in the notification to be issued by the Devaswom Board, the cause of action projected is rather anticipatory in nature. **WP(C).No.9271 of 2019** ## **-:7:-** In the above circumstances, we are of the view that there is no tenable ground so as to call for interference. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE Sd/- N.ANIL KUMAR JUDGE DST **WP(C).No.9271 of 2019** ## **-:8:-** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN BACHELOR OF ARTS DATED 15.3.2008, ISSUED BY THE RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEETHA, TIRUPATI (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THANTRIC VIDYAPEETHA, ALUVA** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P2** **EXHIBIT P2 B TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE IN DIPLOMA IN TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURE ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, ARANMULA.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR SELECTION OF MELSHANTI AT SABARIMALA AND MALIKAPPURM 2018-19 (1094 M.E)** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.03.2019** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **//True Copy//** **P.A.To Judge**