N. Easwaran Nampoothiri Santhi v. Travancore Devaswom Board

P.V. Asha, J.:— Petitioner, who has been working as Santhi from 19.03.2004 onwards, got a transfer to Aranmula Group in the general transfer for the year 2017-18, on the basis of his application. Petitioner was working in Haripad Group since November, 2014. On transfer to Aranmula Group as per order dated 28.07.2017, the petitioner reported before the Administrative Officer, Valiyakoikkal Devaswom. He was thereupon posted at Thirumanimangalam Devaswom on 11.08.2017. However, on 02.09.2017, he was relieved from that Devaswom as per Ext.P2 order and was asked to join Omallur Devaswom. Accordingly petitioner had to join Omallur Devaswom on 06.09.2017.

2. Petitioner submits that he was transferred from Thirumanimangalam Devaswom within a period of 21 days in a most arbitrary manner in order to accommodate the 4 respondent, who came on transfer from Mavelikara group subsequent to the joining of petitioner in Aranmula Group. The 4 respondent was posted at Thirumanimangalam Devaswom in the place of petitioner. The writ petition was filed under the above circumstances, challenging the transfer of petitioner to Omallur Devaswom.

3. The respondents have filed a statement stating that petitioner had to be transferred from Thirumanimangalam Devaswom on account of a complaint dated 25.08.2017 from the Thirumanimangalam Temple Advisory Committee saying that petitioner is appearing in the Temple in unclean manner and that he is having a wound in his leg which he does not care to cover it while performing duties. It is also stated that he is suffering from serious neurological illness and it is dangerous to keep the door closed, while performing Pooja.

4. The petitioner has refuted all these contentions filing a reply affidavit. According to him, he does not have any ailment and he has been working for the last 13 years as a Santhi, and is very well aware of the procedure to be followed, while performing his duties.

5. According to the petitioner, the transfer is ordered only to accommodate the 4 respondent and he is transferred to a place which is far away from his residence, ignoring his seniority on the basis of his date of joining on the basis of inter-department transfer.

6. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel.

7. Since notice is not issued to the 4 respondent, who has replaced the petitioner, I am of the view that the matter requires to be considered by the second respondent. Petitioner had already submitted a representation Ext.P3 immediately after he was relived from Thirumanimangalam Devaswom.

8. In the above circumstances, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation of petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4 respondent. The petitioner would be free to submit supplementary representation in view of the contentions raised in the statement filed by the respondents. The second respondent shall pass orders within a period of ‘one month’ from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.