Suresh R. Potti v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Others

1 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO. 19012 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **SURESH R. POTTI, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O RAMAN POTTI, VARRILLATHUMADOM, 90/10, THALAYAZHAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686 607.** **BY ADVS. M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) BONNY BENNY BALU TOM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003,** - **3 STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **R1-R2 BY ADV SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD** **R3 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 26.07.2022, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.19016 OF 2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO. 19016 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **SURESH R.POTTI, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN POTTI, VARRILLATHUMADOM, 90/10, THALAYAZHAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686 607.** **BY ADVS.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) BALU TOM BONNY BENNY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER** - **TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **R1-R2 BY ADV SHRI.G.BIJU,SC,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD** **R3 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 26.07.2022, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.19012 OF 2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 ## **JUDGMENT** Anil K. Narendran, J. Since common issues are raised, these Writ Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. - 2. W.P.(C) No.19012 of 2021: The petitioner was selected as Melsanthi at Pamba Devaswom for the year 1197 M.E. On completion of the term of selection, he was posted as Melsanthi of a temple in Ettumanoor Group of the 1[st] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11 rejection memo dated 02.09.2021 issued by the 1[st] respondent Board, whereby Ext.P9 application dated 11.06.2021 made by the petitioner for being selected as Melsathi of Sabarimala Devaswom stands rejected on the ground that he belongs to Tulu Brahmin and that, complaints are pending against him before the Women Cell, Alappuzha. On receipt of Ext.P11 rejection memo, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 objection dated 08.09.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in this writ petition, seeking the aforesaid relief and also a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 4 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 to consider his candidature for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom, for the year 1197 M.E. 2.1. On 15.09.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the 1[st] respondent Board conducted a personal hearing and passed Ext.P16 order dated 30.09.2021, whereby the decision taken in Ext.P11 rejection memo stands confirmed. The decision in Ext.P16 is based on the observations made in the report of the Vigilance Wing and on the ground that the documents produced by the petitioner would not show that he belongs to Malayala Brahmin. 2.2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a statement dated 22.09.2021 on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, producing therewith Annexure R1(a) enquiry report of the Vigilance Officer along with the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, which is one dated 31.08.2021, wherein it is stated that the devotees of Thrippakudam Devaswom are not having good opinion about the petitioner, where he is functioning as Melsanthi and that, one Vijayamma has filed a complaint in the Women Cell 5 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 complaining about his immoral activities. Further, the petitioner belongs to Tulu Brahmin community. Therefore, the recommendation of the Vigilance Wing was not in favour of the petitioner. 2.3. By the order dated 05.11.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021, the petitioner was permitted to amend the writ petition in order to challenge Ext.P16 order dated 30.09.2021. Even prior to the amendment of the writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P13 circular dated 17.02.2020 issued by the 1[st] respondent Board, along with I.A.No.1 of 2021. The said application was followed by I.A.No.2 of 2021 seeking an order to accept Exts.P14 and P15 as additional documents and I.A.No.4 of 2021 for accepting Exts.P16, P17 and P18 as additional documents. Ext.P14 is the school admission register of the petitioner's father Raman Potti, as per which he belongs to Malayala Brahmin. The document marked as Ext.P18 is the caste certificate dated 05.10.2021 issued by the Village Officer, Thalayazham, in which it is certified that the petitioner belongs to Malayala Brahmin. 3. W.P.(C) No.19016 of 2021:- The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P11 rejection 6 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 memo dated 02.09.2021 issued by the 1[st] respondent Board, whereby Ext.P9 application dated 11.06.2021 made by the petitioner for being selected as Melsathi of Malikappuram Devaswom for the year 1197 M.E. stands rejected on the ground that he belongs to Tulu Brahmin and that, complaints are pending against him before the Women Cell, Alappuzha. On receipt of Ext.P11 rejection memo, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 objection dated 08.09.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in this writ petition, seeking the aforesaid relief and also a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider his candidature for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom, for the year 1197 M.E. 3.1. On 15.09.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the 1[st] respondent Board conducted a personal hearing and passed Ext.P16 order dated 30.09.2021, whereby the decision taken in Ext.P11 rejection memo stands confirmed. The decision in Ext.P16 is based on the observations made in the report of the Vigilance Wing and on the ground that the documents produced by the petitioner would not 7 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 show that he belongs to Malayala Brahmin. 3.2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board has filed a statement dated 22.09.2021 on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, producing therewith Annexure R1(a) enquiry report of the Vigilance Officer along with the recommendation of the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, which is one dated 31.08.2021, wherein it is stated that the devotees of Thrippakudam Devaswom are not having good opinion about the petitioner, where he is functioning as Melsanthi and that, one Vijayamma has filed a complaint in the Women Cell complaining about his immoral activities. Further, the petitioner belongs to Tulu Brahmin community. Therefore, the recommendation of the Vigilance Wing was not in favour of the petitioner. 3.3. By the order dated 05.11.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2021, the petitioner was permitted to amend the writ petition in order to challenge Ext.P16 order dated 30.09.2021. Even prior to the amendment of the writ petition, the petitioner has placed on record Ext.P13 circular dated 17.02.2020 issued by the 1[st] respondent Board, along with I.A.No.1 of 2021. The said application was followed by I.A.No.2 of 2021 seeking an order to 8 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 accept Exts.P14 and P15 as additional documents and I.A.No.4 of 2021 for accepting Exts.P16, P17 and P18 as additional documents. Ext.P14 is the school admission register of the petitioner's father Raman Potti, as per which he belongs to Malayala Brahmin. The document marked as Ext.P18 is the caste certificate dated 05.10.2021 issued by the Village Officer, Thalayazham, in which it is certified that the petitioner belongs to Malayala Brahmin. 4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 3[rd] respondent. 5. The issue that arises for consideration in these Writ Petitions is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P11 rejection memo and Ext.P16 order dated 30.09.2021 issued by the 1[st] respondent Board, whereby the applications made by the petitioner for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom, for the year 1197 M.E. stand rejected for the reasons stated therein. 6. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which is situated inside Periyar Tiger Reserve, is a prominent pilgrim 9 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 centre in Kerala, where lakhs of devotees trek the rugged terrains of Western Ghats to have darsan of Lord Ayyappa. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple come under the Travancore Devaswom Board. By reason of the custom and tradition, Melsanthies of the Temples are selected every year. The tenure of the Melsanthies is for one year from the 1[st] of Vrischikam to the 31[st] of Thulam next year. 7. In **Mohandas Embranthiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2001 (1) KLT 203]** , in the context of selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Travancore Devaswom Board, being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot choose any person as Melsanthi without any guidelines. For every year, the choosing of Melsanthi has to be done only after proper selection. The Division Bench noticed that the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board inviting applications for the selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, for one year from the 1[st] of Vrischikam to 31[st] Thulam, 1176, mentions the basic qualifications necessary for being selected and that, those who have got basic qualifications will be interviewed by the 10 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 Committee, which will include the Thantri. On the basis of the interview, a short list will be prepared. The selection will be made from the candidates included in the short list on the basis of lot in front of the sanctum sanctorum. The Interview Board should consist of persons, who have knowledge of the subject on which questions are put. The Division Bench noticed that the purpose of the interview is to get the best person for appointment as Melsanthi at Sabarimala Temple. The knowledge of the candidates in the three topics should be assessed, which can be done with the experts in the field. 8. In **Krishnan Namboothiri S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [2015 (5) KHC 829]** , in the context of selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, a Division Bench of this Court held that, selection to the post of Melsanthi cannot be treated as a selection merely for public employment and the canvas in which grounds relating to Articles 14, 16, etc., of the Constitution of India would be etched, will not necessarily be carried, as a whole, into such matters. The scheme of the settlement and purpose of the selection to provide Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples have to be 11 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 borne in mind and cohesively treated while assimilating and applying the terms of the settlement. The Division Bench, though declined interference with the selection process, indicated before parting with the case that once the terms of mediation settlement came to be in operation, the guarantee to the pilgrims, believers, worshippers and faithful followers is that the selection process once carried through the system of the terms of that settlement will give them two persons who will occupy the adorable status of being the Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples. When such seeds of faith are intricately connected with religion, judicial review is impermissible to embark upon and consider any rival claims in the manner as is sought to be raised in the writ petitions. This is all the more so when no breach of the Constitution of India is demonstrated. 9. In **Rajesh J. Potty v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2018 (5) KHC 220]** a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case which was filed by an applicant who applied to take part in the selection process leading to the appointment of Melsanthi at Sabarimala Temple. In the writ petition, it was alleged that, the petitioner is incapacitated from taking part in 12 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 the process because, as per Ext.P1 notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board, only a Santhi (Priest) who has had 12 years experience, out of which, 10 years being spent continuously serving as a Melsanthi (Head Priest) of a temple would alone obtain eligibility for being selected as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple. In the writ petition it was contended that the above stipulation mandating continuous 10 years service as Melsanthi amounts to an illegal classification among the Santhies, since it has no rationale nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by such classification. The petitioner pointed out that till 2016, there was no such stipulation in the notifications, as evidenced by Ext.P9 notification for the year 2013 and Ext.P10 notification for the year 10. In **Rajesh J. Potty [2018 (5) KHC 220]** the Division Bench noticed that Ext.P1 notification does not provide that every Santhi who has put in 12 years service is automatically eligible; but it additionally prescribes a condition that such Santhis should also have served as a Melsanthi in a temple for a continuous period of 10 years out of this, for being rendered eligible to be appointed as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple. Such prescriptive conditions to determine eligibility of a person can, by 13 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 no stretch of imagination, be seen as a sub-classification; but the 12 years continuous service as a Melsanthi in any other temple is only a qualificational condition precedent and the fixing of such a period is intended to narrow the field of choice to the most experienced in terms of years. This becomes all the more relevant because, going by the notification, a person who becomes the Melsanthi in Sabarimala can apply again only after a period of 10 years. These are the prescriptions stipulated in the notification, not to discriminate among persons; but solely to ensure that only a person with the stature and experience behooving the sanctity and divinity of Sabarimala, which is one of the most or perhaps the most prominent temples in the country, is identified and appointed. Before the Division Bench, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Chapter 5 of the Travancore Devaswom Manual published by the Board in the year 2011 treats 'Santhikkars' as a single class and that the provisions of a Melsanthi therein are only with respect to the volume and nature of work in a particular temple. Manual does not speak specifically about the difference between Melsanthis and other Santhis, but only that Melsanthis and Keezhsanthis are appointed in temples where there is a requirement of more than 14 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 one Santhi. Before the Division Bench, it was argued by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board that the prescription in Ext.P1 notification is in the nature of specified qualifications for the Sabarimala Temple alone and that these prescriptions are at variance with those for other temples, since Sabarimala is not an ordinary temple, which has its own singular characteristics, which would require the best and the most experienced Santhi to be appointed as the Melsanthi. The Board, therefore, in the year 2016, thought it fit to enumerate certain adscititious conditions to identify the best candidate, by stipulating that only a person, who has 12 years experience as a Santhi, out of which 10 years being continuously served as a Melsanthi of another temple, would obtain eligibility for being included in the field of choice for appointment as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala. Even when all these stipulations regarding qualification are obtained to a person, he only comes within the field of choice and he does not get any vested right to be appointed, since such appointment is based on a further selection in the manner as has been postulated by the Apex Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.2570-71 of 2003. 11. In **Rajesh J. Potty [2018 (5) KHC 220]** , on 15 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 consideration of the aforesaid contentions on the prescription of the qualifications mentioned in Ext.P1 notification, the Division Bench found that the attempt of the Travancore Devaswom Board should always be to find the best among the Santhis, so that he will be able to perform as a Purappedasanthi of Sabarimala Temple for a continuous period of one year. His devotion, his competence, his experience and his devoutness are all imperatively relevant criteria, which will require to be specifically and pointedly examined and assessed by the competent authorities; and in order to find the person most suitable for the post, the prescription that he should have served as a Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years in the 12 year period of experience as a Santhi cannot be found to be perverse in any manner. 12. The law laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to supra is to the effect that the stipulations in the notification inviting application for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom is to ensure that only a person with the stature and experience behooving the sanctity and divinity of Sabarimala, which is one of the most or perhaps the most prominent temples in the country, is identified 16 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 and appointed. The guarantee to the pilgrims, believers, worshippers and faithful followers is that the selection process once carried through the system of the terms of that settlement will give them two persons who will occupy the adorable status of being the Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples. 13. In the instant case, one of the grounds on which the petitioner's applications for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom stand rejected is that he does not belong to Malayala Brahmin. In support of the claim that the petitioner belongs to Malayala Brahmin, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P14 certificate of the petitioner's father, which is placed on record along with I.A.No.2 of 2021, and also Ext.P18 certificate dated 05.10.2021 produced along with I.A.No.4 of 2021, issued by the Village Officer, Thalayazham, wherein it is certified that the petitioner belongs to Malayala Brahmin. Admittedly, Exts.P14 and P18 were not enclosed along with Ext.P9 application made by the petitioner. Therefore, relying on the aforesaid documents, the petitioner cannot raise a valid challenge against Ext.P11 rejection memo or Ext.P16 order passed by the 1[st] respondent Board, 17 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 whereby his applications for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom stand rejected on the ground that the available materials would not show that the petitioner belongs to Malayala Brahmin. If, as a matter of fact, the petitioner belongs to Malayala Brahmin, it is for him to substantiate the said claim by producing appropriate materials along with his applications for the current year, i.e., 1198 M.E. 14. Another reason stated in Ext.P16 orders for rejecting Ext.P9 applications is the observations made by the Vigilance Wing in Annexure R1(a) enquiry report, wherein it is stated that the devotees of Thrippakudam Devaswom are not having good opinion about the petitioner, where he is functioning as Melsanthi and that, one Vijayamma has filed a complaint in the Women Cell complaining about his immoral activities. 15. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that, on receipt of applications for selection as Melsanthies of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom, the Secretary of the Board will forward those applications to Chief Vigilance and Security Officer for enquiry and report. The report of the Vigilance Wing shall be enclosed along with the respective applications when it is placed 18 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 before the Board for consideration. The applicants, who are issued with rejection memo after the scrutiny of applications by the Board, will be given an opportunity to submit objection. After considering the objection, with notice to the respective applicant, the Board will take a decision as to whether he should be called for interview. 16. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that, in view of the observations made in Annexure R1(a) report of the Vigilance Wing, the Board rejected Ext.P9 applications made by the petitioner, taking into consideration the stipulations in Ext.P8 notifications. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the observations in Annexure R1(a) enquiry report of the Vigilance Wing are absolutely without any basis. The petitioner was not granted a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his case, after furnishing the adverse materials relied on by the Vigilance Wing. 17. Having considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned Senior Government Pleader, we find no reason to interfere with 19 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 Ext.P11 rejection memo or Ext.P16 order in the respective writ petitions, whereby Ext.P9 applications made by the petitioner for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom for the year 1198 M.E. stand rejected for the reasons stated therein. It would be open to the petitioner to submit applications pursuant to the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom for the year 1198 M.E., along with the documents to show that he belongs to Malayala Brahmin. In case the report of the Vigilance Wing on the application made by the petitioner is not in favour of the petitioner, the adverse materials relied on by the Vigilance Wing for making such an observation shall be furnished and he shall be given a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his contentions. With the above observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 20 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19012/2021** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED 2.9.2021 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD DATED 15.7.2015 EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 22120/16 DATED 7.7.2016 EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE BOARD DATED 26.9.2017 EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 26.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE BOARD EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DATED 30.6.2017 EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DATED 30.6.2017 EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE BOARD EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 4.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO DATED 2.9.2021 EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITIONER HAS SEND OBJECTION BY SPEED POST ON 9.9.2021 EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 17/2/2020 EXHIBIT P14 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCHOOL ADMISSION REGISTER OF PETITIONER'S FATHER.** 21 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 **EXHIBIT P15 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. R.O.C. 8063/2021/SABA ISSUED BY THE BOARD DATED 30/09/2021 EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE NATIVITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE DATED 05/10/2021 EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE DATED 05/10/2021** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VIGILANCE WING IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 31.08.2021.** 22 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19016/2021** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DATED**| |---|---| ||**2.9.2021.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD**| ||**DATED 15.7.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC**| ||**22120/16 DATED 7.7.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE**| ||**BOARD DATED 26.9.2017**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO DATED 26.9.2017**| ||**ISSUED BY THE BOARD.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE**| ||**DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DATED 30.6.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE**| ||**DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DATED 30.6.2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY**| ||**THE BOARD.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION MADE BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED**| ||**4.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJECTION MEMO DATED**| ||**2.9.2021.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITIONER HAS SEND**| ||**OBJECTION BY SPEED POST ON 8.9.2021.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE**| ||**TRAVANCORE**<br>**DEVASWOM**<br>**BOARD**<br>**DATED**| ||**17/02/2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**PHOTOSTAT OF THE SCHOOL ADMISSION**| ||**REGISTER OF PETITIONER'S FATHER**| 23 W.P.(C) Nos.19012 & 19016 of 2021 |**EXHIBIT P15**|**PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE**| |---|---| ||**VILLAGE OFFICER**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. R.O.C.**| ||**8063/2021/SABA ISSUED BY THE BOARD DATED**| ||**30/09/2021**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NATIVITY CERTIFICATE**| ||**ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE DATED 05/10/2021**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE**| ||**ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE DATED 05/10/2021**| |**EXHIBIT P18**<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE**<br>**ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**<br>**THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE DATED 05/10/2021**|**EXHIBIT P18**<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE**<br>**ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**<br>**THALAYAZHAM VILLAGE DATED 05/10/2021**| |---|---| |**RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS**|| |**ANNEXURE R1(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE VIGILANCE WING IN**| ||**RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER DATED**| ||**31.08.2021.**|