VASUDEVAN K P.R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions concern appointment of Executive Officers in various temples under the Malabar Devaswom Board. In W.P. (C) No.35485/2007, the petitioner challenges appointment of the Executive Officers, who are arrayed as party respondents in the writ petition alleging that they were selected after a farcical interview. According to the petitioner, the selected candidates owe allegiance to the then ruling party, Communist Party of India (Marxist) . It is further alleged that a list was provided from the party office and those candidates came to be appointed through the back door. When the matter was listed for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out the Government's interference in subsequent appointments of the Executive Officers on the ground of nepotism and favouritism, and a government order issued in that regard is challenged in W.P.(C) No. 25821/2017. In that view of the matter, this Court had ordered the above writ petition to be tagged along with W.P.(C) No.35485/2007.

(2.) The grounds of challenge in both the writ petitions are different though, it is related to appointment of the Executive Officers in Malabar Devaswom Board by way of promotion. The common issue in both the writ petitions is with regard to transparency of selection. Taking into account the challenge as above, it is expedient to dispose both the writ petitions by a common judgment. Though, these matters were posted together, it was heard on different occasions due to inconvenience of counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) W.P.(C) No.35485/2007 is filed by a Kazhakom at Sree Muzhappilangad Bhagavathi Temple. The Malabar Devaswom Board invited applications from the employees working in various temples under the Board for appointment by promotion to the post of Executive Officer Grade-V. The petitioner was not selected. According to the petitioner, Ext.P6 list was prepared at the behest of Malabar Devaswom Employees Union (CITU) affiliated to the Marxist party. The petitioner highlights as to the nature of the interview conducted. Ext.P8 is the list of marks awarded to different candidates, who had applied pursuant to the notification. The petitioner's case is that interview was conducted on different dates. On some days, the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board was present and on certain days he was absent and therefore, the interview itself was farce. The question therefore, to be considered is whether interview was vitiated for any extraneous reasons or not.