Travancore Devaswom Board - Irregularities in the appointment and postings of the officers and staff – Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated - Reg.

DBP No.94 of 2022 1 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ``` & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945 DBP NO.94 OF 2022 ``` ``` IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - TDB PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG. ``` ``` ------------ ``` ``` TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - IRREGULARITIES IN THE APPOINTMENT AND POSTINGS OF THE OFFICERS AND STAFF – SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED - REG. ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` SUO MOTU ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** |**`1`**|**`STATE OF KERALA`**| |---|---| ||**`REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO`**| ||**`GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT),`**| ||**`GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -`**| ||**`695001.`**| |**`2`**|**`TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,`**| ||**`REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE,`**| ||**`KOWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.`**| |**`3`**|**`COMMISSIONER,`**| ||**`TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM`**| ||**`COMMISSIONERATE, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR POST,`**| ||**`THIRUVANANTHHAPURAM - 695003.`**| |**`4`**|**`THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,`**| ||**`VIGILANCE & SECURITY WING, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM`**| ||**`BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR POST,`**| ||**`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.`**| ``` BY ADV Biju ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI S. RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; SRI G.BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` DBP No.94 of 2022 2 ## **ORDER** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** This DBP is registered _suo motu_ based on a complaint dated nil received from one R.Hari, who is stated to be the President of Kerala Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi, Mahadeva Nagar, Kawadiar, Thiruvananthapuram, alleging irregularities in the appointment and postings of the officers and staff of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 2. On 15.12.2022 when this DBP came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board were directed to get instructions. 3. The counter affidavit dated 11.07.2023 on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent Board is placed on record, wherein it is stated that the President and Members of the Board are nominated by the Government in terms of the statutory provisions contained in the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. The appointment of the Devaswom Commissioner is in terms of the procedure prescribed in the Special Rules. The transfer and posting of the officers are regulated by clear norms framed by the Board. There is a mechanism in the norms for challenging the original orders of transfer within the Board. The final order in DBP No.94 of 2022 3 transfer matters is subject to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that there is not even a single writ petition in respect of the transfer and posting of officers made during this year, which itself is self-explanatory regarding the transparency in the postings. The complaint in question is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 4. Heard the Senior Government Pleader for the 1[st] respondent State and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 4. 5. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. As per sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, substituted by the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956, Part I of the Act shall extend to Travancore, Part II of the Act shall extend to Cochin and Part III of the Act shall extend to the whole of the State of Kerala, excluding the Malabar District. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act defines the term ‘Board’ to mean the TDB constituted under Chapter II of the Act in accordance with the covenant. Clause (c) of Section 2 defines the term ‘incorporated DBP No.94 of 2022 4 Devaswoms’ to mean the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I, and ‘unincorporated Devaswoms’ to mean those Devaswoms including Hindu Religious Endowments whether in or outside Travancore which were under the management of the Ruler of Travancore and which have separate accounts of income and expenditure and are separately dealt with. 6. Chapter II of the Act deals with the Travancore Devaswom. Section 3 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in Board. As per Section 3, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of Hindu Religious Endowments and all their properties and funds as well as the fund constituted under the Devaswom Proclamation, 1097 M.E. and the surplus fund constituted under the Devaswom (Amendment) Proclamation, 1122 M.E. which were under the management of the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July, 1949, except the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Sree Pandaravaka properties and all other properties and funds of the said temple, and the management of all institutions which were under the Devaswom Department shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board. 7. Section 15 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 15, subject to the DBP No.94 of 2022 5 provisions of Chapter III of Part I, all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July, 1949, in respect of Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Endowments shall vest in and be exercised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per subsection (2) of Section 15, the Board shall exercise all powers of direction, control and supervision over the incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Endowments under their jurisdiction. 8. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with effect from 12.04.2007, deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. Section 16 of the Act deals with supervision and control by the Board. As per Section 16, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act, DBP No.94 of 2022 6 exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department. 9. Section 24 of the Act deals with maintenance of Devaswoms, etc., out of Devaswom Fund. As per Section 24, the Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund constituted under Section 25, maintain the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I [i.e. incorporated Devaswoms], keep in a state of good repair the temples, buildings, and other appurtenances thereto, administer the said Devaswoms in accordance with recognised usages, make contributions to other Devaswoms in or outside the State and meet the expenditure for the customary religious ceremonies and may provide for the educational upliftment, social and cultural advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community. 10. Section 27 of the Act deals with Devaswom properties. As per Section 27, immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as Devaswom Vaga or Devaswom Poramboke and such other Pandaravaga lands as are in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I after the 30[th] Meenam, 1097 corresponding to the 12[th] April, 1922, shall be dealt with as Devaswom properties. The provisions of the Land Conservancy Act of 1091 (IV of 1091) shall be applicable to DBP No.94 of 2022 7 Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands. Section 31 of the Act deals with management of Devaswoms. As per Section 31, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. ## 11. In **Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom** **Board and others [1975 KLT 55]** a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, under Section 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act the Travancore Devaswom Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in regard - - to the Devaswoms incorporated and unincorporated is analogous to that of trustees. Any improper act of the Trustees could be questioned by a worshipper. ## 12. In **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara** **[(1979) 2 SCC 65** ], in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the DBP No.94 of 2022 8 fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether Defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs 21,500, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a DBP No.94 of 2022 9 member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) DBP No.94 of 2022 10 ## 13. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom** **Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fences eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 14. In **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair** **[(2013 (3) KLT 132]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in **A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law DBP No.94 of 2022 11 will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 15. In **Rajani P. Kuttan and another v. State of Kerala and others [2021 (6) KHC 513]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that among the 1250 Temples managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, only 60 major Temples are self-sufficient and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. The total number of sanctioned posts in various categories in the Travancore Devaswom Board is 5692 and the total number of pensioners is 5749. The major source of revenue of the Travancore Devaswom Board is the income received by way of offering by the devotees, the amount received from vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of DBP No.94 of 2022 12 temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the Temples. Paragraph 59 of the said decision reads thus: “59. The Financial position of the Devaswom Board:- The competent officer of the Devaswom Board filed an affidavit dated 14.06.2021 stating its financial position. It is submitted that there are 1250 temples under the Administrative Control of the Devaswom Board. The total number of sanctioned posts in various categories in the Devaswom Board is 5692, and the total number of pensioners is 5749. It is further submitted that the major sources of revenue of the Devaswom Board are the income received by way of offerings from devotees, the amount received from vazhipadu, and the revenue generated through the auction of the temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples. Besides this, the Devaswom Board gets an approximate sum of 14 crores per annum by way of the rent of the buildings owned by it. The annual contribution from the State Government under Article 290A of the Constitution of India is Rs.80 lakhs. It is further submitted that among the 1250 temples managed by the Devaswom - Board, only 60 major temples are self sufficient, and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. Now, due to the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, the temples remain closed, and the major source of income has come down. The Devaswom Board is finding it difficult even to pay the salary of the existing employees. The pleadings regarding the financial position of the Devaswom Board in the affidavit dated DBP No.94 of 2022 13 14.06.2021 have not been controverted by the petitioners.” (underline supplied) ## 16. In **Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022** **(2) KHC 411]** this Court held that, in view of the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper administration, supervision and control of Sabarimala Devaswom, which is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of the said Act, under the Chengannur Group. The Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom and conduct daily worships and ceremonies and also festivals in the temple according to its usage. Position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees, as held by this Court in **Ram Mohan Das [1975 KLT 55]** . Any improper act of the trustees could be questioned by a worshiper. The Board and those entrusted with the duty of managing the properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom are duty bound to DBP No.94 of 2022 14 protect the properties of the deity from any wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation. Any such wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, which are acts of 'fence eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. Since the deity being a perpetual minor, this Court is having inherent jurisdiction to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity and the doctrine of _parens patriae_ will also apply in the exercise of such jurisdiction. 17. By the order dated 14.02.2022, this Court disposed of DBP No.2 of 2022, which was registered _suo motu_ , based on a news report that appeared in Mathrubhumi online edition on 30.01.2022 alleging huge corruption behind fake food bills submitted by the officials of Travancore Devaswom Board. In the said order – **Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (2)** **KHC 411]** - this Court issued various directions to see that only most efficient and upright Police officers are posted on deputation in the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 18. Taking into consideration the directions contained in the order dated 14.02.2022 in DBP No.2 of 2022, while disposing of DBA No.4 of 2022 by the order dated 09.06.2022, this Court felt the need to conduct an enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Security Wing of the Board regarding the credentials DBP No.94 of 2022 15 of the incumbents, before ordering transfer and posting of Devaswom staff to the Vigilance Wing of the Board having offices at Thiruvananthapuram, Mavelikkara and Vaikom. Pursuant to the direction contained in the order dated 09.06.2022 in DBA No.4 of 2022, Registry has initiated DBP No.21 of 2022 _suo motu_ , in the matter of transfer and postings of Devaswom staff to the Vigilance Wing of the Board and DBP No.22 of 2022 in the matter of Devaswom staff posted at Sabarimala and also at Sreekandeswaram Temple, Kottarakkara Temple, etc. 19. By the order dated 13.07.2022 **[2022:KER:36060]** , DBP No.21 of 2022 was disposed of. Paragraph 22 of the said order reads thus; “22. In view of the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and also the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, we deem it appropriate to direct the 3[rd] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to ensure that, before posting any officer/staff in the Vigilance Wing of the Board having offices at Thiruvananthapuram, Mavelikkara and Vaikom, the credentials of the officer/staff concerned are ascertained through the report of the 5[th] respondent Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Security Wing of the Board. The said report shall be placed before the Board, which shall consider that report before ordering transfer and posting of any officer/staff in the Vigilance Wing of the Board having offices at Thiruvananthapuram, Mavelikkara and Vaikom. While ordering transfer and postings, the Board DBP No.94 of 2022 16 shall ensure that, only efficient and upright officer/staff are posted in the Vigilance Wing of the Board.” 20. By the order dated 19.07.2022 **[2022:KER:37818]** , DBP No.22 of 2022 was disposed of. Paragraph 19 of that order reads thus; “19. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we find that no interference is warranted in the posting of Sri.H. Krishnakumar as the Executive Officer, Sabarimala and Sri.N. Sreedhara Sharma as the Administrative Officer, Erumeli Devaswom, for the reasons noticed hereinbefore at paragraph 5 of this order. In view of the provisions under Section 15A of the Act, it is the duty of the Board to monitor whether the administrative officials and the employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The position of the Board in this regard is analogues to that of Trustees, as held by this Court in **Ram Mohan Das [1975 KLT 55]** . Any improper act of the Trustees could be questioned by a worshiper. The Board is duty bound to protect the properties of the deity from any wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take necessary steps to ensure that, before posting any Administrative Officer/Executive Officer in major temples like Ettumanoor Sree Mahadeva Temple, Vaikom Sree Mahadeva Temple, Chettikulangara Sree Bhagavathi Temple, P.D. Manikanteswaram, Kottarakkara, Thiruvallam Sree Parasurama Swami Temple, Sreekanteswaram Mahadeva temple, Malayalappuzha Devi Temple and Valliyam Kavu DBP No.94 of 2022 17 Devi Temple, the credentials of the officer concerned are ascertained through the report of the 4th respondent Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Security Wing. The said report shall be placed before the Board, which shall consider that report before ordering transfer and posting of Administrative Officer/Executive Officer in major temples. While ordering transfer and postings, the Board shall ensure that, only efficient and upright officers are posted as Administrative Officer/Executive Officer in major temples under its management. The Board is directed to review the transfer and postings of Administrative Officer/Executive Officer in major temples, after obtaining the report of the 4th respondent on the credentials of such officers. The exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 21. By the order dated 03.03.2023 in DBP No.16 of 2023 **[2023:KER:17093]** , after referring to the powers of the learned Ombudsman, as per the order of this Court dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990, W.P.(C)No.19571 of 2007 and DBP No.1 of 2006, the law laid down by this Court in **Kamalam v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2014 (4) KLT 545]** , etc., this Court directed Registry to initiate _suo motu_ proceedings on the functions of the learned Ombudsman. Accordingly, DBP No.21 of 2023 was registered _suo motu_ , in the matter pertaining to the functions of the learned Ombudsman for Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board. DBP No.94 of 2022 18 ## 22. In **Kamalam v. Cochin Devaswom Board [2014 (4)** **KLT 545]** after quoting the functions of the learned Ombudsman as per Clause (3) of the order dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990, W.P.(C)No.19571 of 2007 and DBP No.1 of 2006, a Division Bench of this Court held that the mechanism of the learned Ombudsman was intended to protect public interest and not for resolving the personal grievances of the employees of the Boards and Temples. Necessarily, the complaints directed to be investigated by the learned Ombudsman are complaints filed with regard to misappropriation, maladministration, corruption etc., in the functioning of the Board or the temples or the institutions under the management and administration of the Boards. In other words, only complaints involving an element of public interest were required to be gone into by the learned Ombudsman and to that effect the order of this Court dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No 3821 of 1990 and connected cases is clarified. Paragraph 3 of that decision reads thus; “3. A committee appointed earlier by this Court to review the working of the Devaswom Boards constituted under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 had reported to this Court the various instances of mismanagement, misappropriation of funds, corruption etc, in the Devaswom Boards and also in the Temples under the Boards. While considering the recommendations of the said DBP No.94 of 2022 19 committee, this Court noticed that the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 has not invested any powers on the State Government over the affairs of the Devaswom Boards constituted for management of the temples and that the legislature in its wisdom has only conferred powers on this Court to supervise the functioning of the Boards and its officers and also to supervise the audit of the accounts of the Boards. It was also noticed that as per the provisions of the said Act, the auditors of the Boards have to specify in the reports all cases of irregularities, illegal or improper expenditure or failure to recover money or other properties due to the Board or to the institutions under the management or loss or waste of money or other properties caused by neglect or mistakes and it is for this court to initiate remedial actions thereof. It was further noticed that the High Court as parens patriae has a duty to protect the temple properties and curb corruption, mismanagement and maladministration in the affairs of the temples and institutions under the control of the Devaswom Boards. It is in the said circumstances, this Court felt that an Ombudsman with a full-fledged system would be of considerable help to the High Court in the discharge of its duties and accordingly, appointed the Ombudsman. In other words, the purpose of appointment of the Ombudsman was to enable this court to discharge its duties under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and as parens patriae over the affairs of the Temples and its properties. The broad functions of the Ombudsman as prescribed in the order would reinforce the said conclusion of ours. The function of the Ombudsman as regards the complaints received from the devotees, temple employees, members of the Board etc. as DBP No.94 of 2022 20 ## prescribed in the order reads thus: “Ombudsman is authorised to investigate all complaints received from the devotees, temple employees, members of the Board or on a reference by the High Court or from the Government or that come to his notice with regard to misappropriation, maladministration, corruption, etc. in the functioning of the Board or the temples or the institutions under the management and administration of the Boards and submit a report to this court periodically” (underline supplied) It is thus evident that the mechanism of the Ombudsman was intended to protect public interest and not for resolving the personal grievances of the employees of the Boards and Temples. Necessarily, the complaints directed to be investigated by the Ombudsman are complaints filed with regard to misappropriation, maladministration, corruption etc. in the functioning of the Board or the temples or the institutions under the management and administration of the Boards. In other words, only complaints involving an element of public interest were required to be gone into by the Ombudsman and to that extent the order of this court dated 27.11.2007 in O.P No.3821 of 1990 and connected cases is clarified.” 23. By the order dated 19.10.2015 in O.P No.3821 of 1990, DBP No.1 of 2015 and DBP No.107 of 2015 **[Examiner, Local Fund Accounts, Trivandrum v. Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board, Trivandrdum]** , Clause 9A has been added to the order dated 27.11.2017. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that decision read thus; “3. We notice that through order dated 20.10.2014 in DBP No.33 of 2014 and connections, this Court had interpreted DBP No.94 of 2022 21 clause 3 among the duties and functions enumerated in the order dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connections to point out that the personal grievances of employees of TDB and CDB and the temples do not come within the enumerated duties of the learned Ombudsman and the complaints ought to be those involving any element of public interest. The order dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connections was also thus clarified by this Court. We agree with the view in that order that there is no provision among the functions enumerated in the order dated 27.11.2007 as of now, touching all such matters. 4. In the conspectus of the earlier orders in O.P.No.3821 of 1990, we have bestowed our anxious consideration to the need for consideration of complaints from employees, which are in the form of personal grievances. They may relate to employees of TDB and CDB or temples under them. Grievances may be in relation to disciplinary action or such other matters which may be in the realm of statutory regulations and service rules. At the same time, there may be personal grievances of failure or delay to disburse the undisputed or indisputable outstandings to the employees, or purely administrative matters like transfer, and such other matters which are only to be treated as not amounting to interference with any statutory power of either the TDB or CDB in terms of the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and the Regulations and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, we are of the view that, in the fitness of things, it is appropriate to augment the duties, responsibilities and the functions of the Ombudsman by including among them the personal DBP No.94 of 2022 22 grievances of employees of TDB and CDB and the temples thereunder, which would not turn adversarial on the basis of the statutory provisions, including Acts, Rules, Regulations etc. This may include matters relating to nondisbursal of admitted or indisputable amounts towards salaries and other drawals and also dues to retired personnel. All such matters can be considered by the Ombudsman. It is also ordered, and it is directed that the decisions of the Ombudsman on such matters shall be complied with by the TDB and the CDB. In the event of any objection, that may be placed before the Ombudsman, who will then place a report to this Court. In all other matters, the action taken, and compliance need be shown only in the periodical reports of the Ombudsman. 5. In the light of what are stated above, we modify order dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and add the following after clause 9 in that order: "9A: The Ombudsman will consider such individual grievance of employees of the TDB and the CDB and the temples thereunder which would not turn adversarial on the basis of the statutory provisions, including Acts, Rules, Regulations etc. This may include matters relating to non-disbursal of admitted or indisputable amounts, salaries and other drawals and such other matters, including dues to retired personnel. Such matters and the action taken, and compliance thereof need be shown only in the periodical reports of the Ombudsman. If any objection is raised by the TDB or the CDB to the recommendations of the Ombudsman on such matters, that may be placed before the Ombudsman DBP No.94 of 2022 23 who will then place a report to this Court with his views thereon. All such matters can be considered by the Ombudsman. Ombudsman will also entertain personal grievances in administrative matters not amounting to disciplinary proceedings so that the parties could be appropriately led to resolve such disputes before the Ombudsman." 24. DBP No.77 of 2022 was registered based on Report No.34 of 2022 of the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards in Complaint No.79 of 2022. The complainant, who is the Melsanthi of Chittadeeswaran Devaswom in Rameswaram Sub Group under the Travancore Devaswom Board, filed complaint dated 20.06.2022 before the learned Ombudsman, wherein it is stated that he has 32 years of service in the Board and he is due to retire in 2023. He opted for the post of Melshanti Thrikkadavoor Devaswom and Ashramam Devaswom in the general transfer of 2022. Since he has got only less than one year service before retirement, he is entitled to be transferred to the place of choice near his residence. However, he was retained in Chittadeewaram Temple as Melshanti. In the complaint he refers Clause (14) of the transfer norms. In the complaint, it is alleged that the person who has been transferred to Thrikkadavoor Devaswom has a long period of service remaining, whereas the complainant has got only less than one year of service. The DBP No.94 of 2022 24 request of the complainant was that he may be accommodated as Melshanti, either at Thrikkadavoor Devaswom or Ashramam Devaswom. 25. DBP No.77 of 2022 was disposed of by the order dated 20.01.2023 **[2023:KER:16757]** , wherein it was held that the - grievance of the complainant regarding non consideration of his claim for transfer to Thrikkadavoor Devaswom or Asramam Devaswom cannot be entertained by the learned Ombudsman under Clause 9A added to the order of this Court dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters, vide the order dated 19.10.2015 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters. The legality or otherwise of an order of transfer by the competent authority or that of an order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be decided by the learned Ombudsman, based on a complaint made by a Devaswom employee. Paragraph 10 of the order dated 20.01.2023 in DBP No.77 of 2022 reads thus; “10. In the instant case the grievance of the complainant is that his claim for the post of Melshanti, either at Thrikkadavoor Devaswom or at Asramam Devaswom, in terms of Clause (14) of transfer norms, since he got only less than one year service of retirement, is overlooked and the person who has been transferred to Thrikkadavoor Devaswom has a long period of service remaining. The norms for transfer of temple employees under Travancore DBP No.94 of 2022 25 Devaswom Board is placed before the learned Ombudsman along with the report dated 03.10.2022 of the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner (Administration). Challenging non-consideration of the claim of the complainant for a posting to Thrikkadavoor Devaswom or Asramam Devaswom, he filed appeal before the Devaswom Commissioner, which ended in dismissal by the order dated 09.06.2022, on the ground that in the above two places opted by the complainant senior hands were considered for posting. If the complainant is having any grievance regarding non-consideration of his claim for transfer to Thrikkadavoor Devaswom or Asramam Devaswom, he has to challenge the order passed by the appellate authority before the appropriate forum, with the rival claimants in the party array. Such a grievance cannot be entertained by the learned Ombudsman under Clause 9A added to the order dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters, vide order dated 19.10.2015 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters. The legality or otherwise of an order of transfer passed by the competent authority or that of the order passed by the appellate authority cannot be decided by the learned Ombudsman, based on a complaint made by a Devaswom employee. Therefore, it is for the complainant to challenge the order of the appellate authority before the appropriate forum.” 26. DBP No.21 of 2023, which was registered _suo motu_ , in the matter pertaining to the functions of the learned Ombudsman for Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board, was disposed of by the order dated 04.04.2023 DBP No.94 of 2022 26 **[2023:KER:29631]** , wherein this Court held that, in view of the order of this Court dated 20.01.2023 in DBP No.77 of 2022, the individual grievances of the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Cochin Devaswom Board and also that of the employees in the temples under its management regarding non-consideration of their claim for transfer cannot be entertained by the learned Ombudsman under Clause 9A added to the order of this Court dated 27.11.2007 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters, vide the order dated 19.10.2015 in O.P.No.3821 of 1990 and connected matters. The grievance of such employees in relation to their service matters, which involves consideration of rival claims, interpretation of the provisions under the respective statutes, etc. have to be raised in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the grievances of the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board and also that of the employees in the temples under its management cannot be the subject matter in a complaint filed before the learned Ombudsman or a complaint forwarded to the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters. On the complaints received by the learned Ombudsman from a devotee or a Temple Advisory Committee of a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board or the Cochin DBP No.94 of 2022 27 Devaswom Board, alleging maladministration, misappropriation, corruption, etc., or on the complaints received alleging maladministration, misappropriation, corruption, etc., in the institutions under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board or the Cochin Devaswom Board, the report of the learned Ombudsman shall be placed before the Devaswom Bench for appropriate orders. 27. In view of the provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act referred to above and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms, under its management. The Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and the employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and the institutions under its management. While ordering promotion or transfer and posting of the administrative officials and the employees and also the employees connected with religious rites, DBP No.94 of 2022 28 the Travancore Devaswom Board has to ensure strict compliance of the qualifications, procedures and norms prescribed in the Special Rules, Regulations, etc. and also the directions contained in the orders of this Court in DBP Nos.21 of 2022 and 22 of 2022. Since the position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of a trustee, as held by this Court in **Ram Mohan Das [1975 KLT 55]** , any improper act of the trustee could be questioned by a worshiper. 28. In the instant case, the complaint dated nil, based on which this DBP was registered _suo motu_ , does not contain proper pleadings, with specific allegations against identified persons, who should be arrayed as respondents in the complaint. In the absence of any such complaint, no interference of this Court is warranted. 29. Even after the issuance of the directions contained in DBP No.21 of 2022 and 22 of 2022, the devotees, office bearers, Employees’ Federation, etc., are submitting various complaints before this Court. Five of such complaints form part of DBP No.40 of 2023, registered vide proceedings dated 05.06.2023 in the matter of credentials of Devaswom staff posted at various temples, as Annexures A1 to A5. On 07.06.2023, two more complaints were incorporated in DBP No.40 of 2023 as Annexures A6 and A7. Thereafter, eight more complaints were incorporated DBP No.94 of 2022 29 as Annexures A8 to A15, by the order dated 23.06.2023. Taking note of the pendency of DBP No.40 of 2023, this DBP is disposed of with the observations contained hereinbefore at paragraph 27. **Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** Dxy