Smt. K. Sathyabhama v. The Chairman, Board of Trustees, Sri Aarinambi Devaswom; The Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board; The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board; The Malabar Devaswom Board, represented by its President

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** ## **PETITIONER:** **SMT.K. SATHYABHAMA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. RAMESH, ARIYOOR P.O,- 678 583, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNA KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES,**| |---|---| ||**SRI. AARINAMBI DEVASWOM, ARIYOOR P.O. - 678 583,**| ||**MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,**| ||**MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD DIVISION,**| ||**CIVIL STATION P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 001.**| |**3**|**THE COMMISSIONER,**| ||**MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,**| ||**ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 006.**| |**4**|**THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ERANHIPALAM P.O.,**| ||**KOZHIKODE - 673 006.**| **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.T.V.NEEMA SRI.T.S.NEJIMUDDIN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SRI.H.PRAVEEN KOTTARAKARA SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD SMT.D.S.THUSHARA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** **-2-** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 17th day of March 2021** The petitioner says that she was appointed as an Executive Officer of ’Sree Aarinambi Temple', Palakkad - under Statutory supervisory control of the Malabar Devaswom Board - as per the stipulations in the Scheme of Governance settled for it under the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘, for short). 2. The petitioner contends that even though she was validly appointed by the 1st respondent – Board of Trustees in Management of the Temple, it was sought to be cancelled through Ext.P2 merely saying that her appointment has been objected to by the competent Authority of the Malabar Devaswom Board; which was then followed by Ext.P5 communication stating that she can apply again, as and when the processes for appointment of a new ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** **-3-** Executive Officer is taken forward. 3. The petitioner says that both Exts.P2 and P5 are illegal and unlawful because: for one, the process under which she was selected is irreproachable; while for the second, the Malabar Devaswom Board does not have any jurisdiction to direct the cancellation of the appointment of an Executive Officer in a Temple which is governed by its own Scheme. 4. The petitioner thus prays that Exts.P2 and P5 be set aside and respondents 1 to 4 be directed to permit her to continue in service in terms of her original appointment order, namely Ext.P1. 5. I have heard Sri.M.Krishna Kumar – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Malabar Devaswom Board and Sri.K.Mohanakannan – learned counsel appearing for the first respondent – Chairman of the Board of ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** **-4-** Trustees of the Temple . 6. Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan – learned Standing Counsel for the Board, submitted that, after the selection of petitioner was done by the 1[st] respondent Board of Trustees, the relevant papers were sent to the Board for approval by them; and that consequently, the Board, which met on 18.07.2017, was constrained to decide to reject the application made by the 1[st] respondent seeking approval of appointment of the petitioner because, it was found that even though there were only two members in the Interview Board - constituted by the Board of Trustees for selecting candidates to the post of Executive Officer of the Temple - a third trustee had subscribed his signature to the proceedings. 7. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that when this fact was brought to the notice of the Board, they were obligated, under the ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** **-5-** provisions of Section 48 of the Act, to _‘verify and ensure that all appointments made by the Trustee have been done validly, properly and fairly._ ’ (sic) He asserted that, it was in such circumstances, that the Devaswom Board directed the Board of Trustees of the Temple to cancel the appointment of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 8. Sri.Mohanakannan,learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent - Board of Trustees of the Temple , submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record on behalf of his client, wherein, Ext.R1(c) series of documents have been produced, which are the mark sheets and the proceedings prepared and maintained by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of evaluating the candidates to the post of Executive Officer of the Temple . 9. Sri.Mohanakannan submitted that, as is ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** **-6-** clear from the Tabulation Form of the said process, five candidates had been evaluated by the Interview Board/Selection Committee, which comprised of only Hereditary Trustee and one another trustee by name Sri.Ajayakumar M.P., and that these two persons have signed the said documents in affirmation. 10. The learned counsel then submitted that the fact that the Interview Board had only these two members which is unmistakable because, the Tabulation Form shows the column meant for the third member has been left blank. He explained that, however, an another Trustee by name Sri.K.N.Sukumaran Unni had signed the Tabulation sheet prepared by the Interview Board, not because he had participated in said process, but merely to show that it had been prepared validly. He argued that merely because Sri.K.N.Sukumaran Unni had signed the documents as a Trustee, but not as a ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** **-7-** member of the Selection Committee/Interview Board, the Devaswom Board could not have found fault with it and to have directed the termination of appointment of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed. 11. Sri.M.Krishna Kumar – learned counsel for the petitioner, responded to the afore recorded submissions of Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan by contending that, going by the judgment of this Court in **Zamorin Raja v. Government of Kerala** [2016 (4) KLT 841], the Devaswom Board does not obtain any jurisdiction to intervene in the matter of selection of Executive Officer of the Temple; and that merely because a Trustee member had signed in the Tabulation Form - not in his capacity as the member of Interview Board but in his capacity as a member of Board of Trustees - it cannot be held to vitiate the process, particularly when the Devaswom Board does not have a case that any ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** **-8-** suspicious circumstances had been found in the selection or interview process. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed. **==> picture [391 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** contentions of the parties very carefully and have examined the documents available on record, particularly Ext.R1(c) series. 13. The only reason why the Devaswom Board has raised objection to the appointment of the petitioner is because the Tabulation Form prepared by the Interview Board - constituted by the Board of Trustees of the Temple - carry three signatures, while it was constituted with only two members. 14. Even when one looks through Ext.R1(c), it is evident that the marks have been given to the various candidates, including the petitioner, only by the Hereditary Trustee and by another Trustee by name Sri.Ajayakumar M.P., who were admittedly ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** **-9-** constituted as the Interview Board. The third person who had signed the Tabulation Form, namely Sri.K.N.Sukumaran Unni, has not evaluated any of the candidates nor has he granted any marks to them, which is evident because the column meant for the third member is kept blank. 15. Therefore, even if it is assumed that Sri.K.N.Sukumaran Unni had signed the Tabulation Forms without any purpose, I fail to understand how the Devaswom Board could say that this _per se_ vitiates the entire selection process, leading to the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner. 16. This is more so because, even in the statement filed on behalf of the Devaswom Board, they did not explain how the affixing of signature by Sri.K.N.Sukumaran Unni would by itself render the process inept or illegal, especially when they concede that the said person had no role in the Interview Board. Therefore, the conclusion arrived ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** **-10-** by them, which led to Exts.P2 and P5 proceedings being issued by the 1[st] respondent – Board of Trustees, clearly was without basis and solely on the basis of conjectures and surmises that all was not well in the interview process. 17. In the afore circumstances, since I cannot find the process undertaken by the 1[st] respondent - which led to appointment of the petitioner - to be in any manner is error, I do not think it is necessary for this Court to answer the contentions of the petitioner that the Devaswom Board has no power under Section 48 of the Act to intervene with such selection procedures. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Exts.P2 and P5; with a consequential direction to the 1[st] respondent – Board of Trustees of the Temple, to allow the petitioner to continue in service untrammeled by the objections raised by the Malabar Devaswom **-11-** ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** Board against this selection process. Since the petitioner was continuing in service throughout on the basis of an interim order of this Court, I further direct the 2[nd] respondent to include the petitioner in the Schedule of Establishment of the Temple, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; with a consequential direction to the 1[st] respondent to ensure that all eligible salary and emoluments are disbursed to her without any avoidable delay. This writ petition is thus ordered. **Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** akv ## **WP(C).No.38562 OF 2017(U)** **-12-** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 27.04.2016** **EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.09.2017** **EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.10.2017 EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 3.10.2017 EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2017** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PALAKKAD DATED 26.12.2019.** **EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.8513 OF 2013 DATED 26.09.2014.** **EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.04.2016 WITH ANNEXURES.** **EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER DATED 2.9.2017.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE