E HARIHARAN Vs. KARULI SRI CHEMMANTHITTA BHAGAVATHY; ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER; MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD; K SATHYANARAYANN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's grievance is that by Ext.P1 notice dated 31/10/2009, applications were invited by the Trustees of the 1st respondent temple for appointment to the post of Security Guard/Store Keeper/Watchman. According to him, for reasons which are not stated in Ext.P1 notice, his candidature was rejected only to pave way for the appointment of the 4th respondent.

(2.) The petitioner submits that urging all his complaints he has filed Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent and that the said representation is also not disposed of. It is also his grievance that expeditious steps are being taken to appoint the 4th respondent in the meanwhile.

(3.) I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 also.