NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI P T Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the President of the Managing Committee of the T.T.K. Devaswom, Kannur. The administration of the devaswom is being carried on in accordance with the provisions of a scheme framed in OP. No. 60/1987 of the Sub Court, Payyannur. It is the case of the petitioner that as per clause 10 of Ext.P1 scheme, the Managing Committee is the competent authority to appoint an Executive Officer who is necessary for managing the day to day affairs of the temple. Earlier, one Sri. E.K. Babu was functioning as the executive officer. He had been removed from service on the ground of misconduct. However, he challenged his removal in an appeal, AP. No. 11/2008, which is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. Thus, a situation was created where the devaswom has no regular Executive Officer. Therefore, one M.P. Kuberan was appointed as the Executive Officer on provisional basis, but he was later removed, since he was over aged. The said person has challenged his removal by filing writ petition WP (C). No. 1687/2009. The pendency of the litigations referred to above prevented the first petitioner from making a permanent appointment to the post of Executive Officer. Therefore, the devaswom decided to fill up the post on temporary basis in terms of Rule 4(c)(i) of the rules framed under Section 100(2)(p) and (x)(ii) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 ('HR & CE Act' for short). According to the petitioners, the appointment was made after inviting applications for appointment to the post and assessing the relative merits of each candidate. Thus, the second petitioner was appointed as the Executive Officer as per Ext.P3. He has thereafter furnished security in terms of Rule 1 of Chapter II of the rules under the HR & CE Act. He was also given training as provided by the rules and he has been discharging his duties, satisfactorily. Subsequently, the Managing Committee has passed a resolution by which the term of the second petitioner was extended.

(2.) In the meantime, the writ petition filed by Sri. M.P. Kuberan was allowed by this Court and he was reinstated as the Executive Officer. Thereupon, the second petitioner handed over charge to the said person. However, Sri. M.P. Kuberan resigned from the post on 18.10.2010 and left.

(3.) In the above circumstances, the second petitioner submitted a representation to the Managing Committee seeking permission to continue as the Executive Officer. The same was considered and the second petitioner was appointed for a period of 89 days. The said appointment was challenged by some of the non hereditary trustees by filing RP. No. 10/2011' before the respondent. As per Ext. P7, the appointment of the second petitioner was found to be in order. The respondent has further ordered as follows: