P V SUBRAMANYAN Vs. V K KUNCHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has come up for consideration in these cases is whether petitioner in O.P. No. 15781 of 2000 who is a member of the Scheduled Caste is entitled to get promotion to the post of P.A. to Administrator (Stores & Purchase) in the retirement vacancy which arose on 31.5. 2000. Learned single judge took the view that since petitioner was found eligible in the previous selection for the post of P.A. to Administrator he should be given promotion by the Managing Committee as and when they intend to fill up the vacancy which occurred on 31.5.2000.

(2.) Guruvayoor Devaswom Committee was first respondent in the writ petition. They found no reason to challenge the direction given by the learned judge. Therefore as far as Devaswom Committee is concerned, judgment of the learned single judge has become final. Contesting respondents who are Assistant Managers under the Devaswom took up the stand that fresh selection be made for promotion to fill up the vacancy of P.A. to Administrator. The dispute now is between the petitioner in O.P. No. 15781 of 2000, petitioners in O.P. No. 20289 of 2000 and the appellant in W.A. No 3253 of 2000. We may refer to the facts in O.P. No 15781 of 2000 for the disposal of these cases.

(3.) In order to deal with the claims of the petitioner and contesting respondents, it is necessary to refer to some facts. Writ petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste community serving as Asst. Manager under the Devaswom. We had approached this court earlier by filing O.P. No. 7372 of 1989 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Guruvayoor Devaswom Committee to promote him to the category of P.A. to Administrator in accordance with Section 19 (2) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 and also for a declaration that Clause 8 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations 1983 is invalid and inoperative. O.P. No. 15672 of 1995 was also filed by an Assistant Manager of the Devaswom challenging the constitutional validity of Section 19 (2) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act. When the matter came up for hearing before a Division Bench, petitioners in those writ petitions submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 19 (2) need not be decided but submitted it would be sufficient if the court interprets Section 19 (2) of the Act for the purpose of disposal of those cases.