VIJAYAN Vs. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two petitioners in this Original Petition. They are Upper Division Clerks in the service of Guruvayoor Devaswom. In the Original Petition, they challenge Ext. P8 and pray for quashing the same. Ext. P8 is an order passed by the Administrator, Guruvayoor Devaswom on 3.3.2001. By this order, the petitioners have been suspended pending disciplinary proceedings. The facts in the Original Petition are as follows:

(2.) The first petitioner is the Secretary and the second petitioner is the President of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Association. According to the petitioners, it was a registered non political Association of employees of the Guruvayoor Devaswom. The case of the petitioners is that the Association is fighting against the various illegalities and corruptions committed in the Devaswom. It gives details of the attempt made by the Association to put everything in order when the Managing Committee of the Devaswom had deviated from its path. The petitioners referred to O. P. No. 2071 of 1993 with regard to "Govesala". According to the petitioners, whenever the Managing Committee was exercising its power illegally, the petitioner tried to prevent them from making anything illegally.

(3.) In para 7, the petitioners stated that the Devaswom had a Driver by name Ponnu. He was sent on deputation to the Kerala Pharmaceutical Corporation as per order of the Health Department dated 17.1.2001. After sending Ponnu on deputation, the Administrator of the Devaswom on 1.2.2001 issued an order appointing one K. Satheesan in the vacancy which arose on account of the deputation. The petitioners contend that virtually it was a non existing vacancy, which was created by illegal means. There is no provision for sending a Devaswom employee on deputation to any other Government Department. Further, the Health Department has no authority for ordering deputation. When this fact became known, the Association complained before the Commissioner of Guruvayoor Devaswom and the Minister through representation, copy of which is produced and marked as Ext. P3 in the case. Ext. P3 according to the petitioners, has antagonised the first respondent.