LAWS(KER)-2025-5-303

ARUNKUMAR P. Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

Decided On May 19, 2025
Arunkumar P. Appellant
V/S
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27677 of 2024, challenging the judgment dtd. 3/3/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

(2.) The appellant is presently working as "Sambandhy" at Chittoor Sree Krishnaswamy Temple under the management of the 1st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. By Ext.P1 order dtd. 29/7/2024, issued by the 2nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, the appellant was transferred to Arikanniyoor Temple, which according to the appellant is more than 85 kms away from his present working place. According to the appellant, he filed Ext.P2 complaint against the Secretary of the Temple Advisory Committee of Chittoor Sree Krishnaswamy Temple, alleging an offence under Sec. 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The accused in that complaint is an influential person and he caused the issuance of Ext.P1 transfer order. The appellant claims that he is a native of Alappuzha and has been suffering from perforation of the left ear and allergic rhinitis. He underwent surgery in the month of August 2022. He submitted Ext.P3 request dtd. 26/7/2023, seeking transfer to some other temples having less blowing of Conch, considering his illness. The transfer of the appellant is against Ext.P4 Government Order dtd. 25/2/2017 bearing G.O.(P)No.3/2017/P&ARD. The appellant is getting a salary of Rs.22,000.00 only and he has to look after his aged parents. If the transfer is effected, it will adversely affect the appellant. Raising these contentions, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 transfer order dtd. 29/7/2024 issued by the 2nd respondent.

(3.) By the impugned judgment dtd. 3/3/2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, noting that the appellant was transferred at his request. However, the learned Single Judge permitted the appellant to again approach the competent authority to transfer him to a nearby place, if he is so advised.