K V GOKULANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25821 of 2017 are the appellants in W.A.No.1107 of 2018. W.P.(C) No.25821 of 2017 was filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 Government order and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to make appointment to the post of Executive Officer Grade-IV from Ext.P2 merit list, within a time frame. The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment, against which this writ appeal is filed.

(2.) W.P.(C) No.25819 of 2018 is filed subsequent to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.25821 of 2017 and during the pendency of W.A.No.1107 of 2018. The challenge in W.P.(C) No.25819 of 2018 is against the very same Government order, which was the subject matter of the challenge in W.P.(C) No.25821 of 2017. This fact was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and thereupon, W.P.(C) No.25819 of 2018 was directed to be posted along with the writ appeal. Accordingly, the matters were considered together and are being decided under this common judgment. The parties and exhibits are described herein, as per their status and description in W.P.(C) No.25821 of 2017.

(3.) The Malabar Devaswom Board had, vide Ext.P1 notification dated 13.3.2014, invited applications from the employees of the temples under its administration, for appointment by promotion as Executive Officers Grade IV. The essential qualification for appointment, as per Ext.P1 notification, is S.S.L.C and ten years service as a temple employee, as on 1.1.2014. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, the petitioners had submitted applications and were called for interview by an Interview Board consisting of four persons, viz, the President, Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and a Member of the Malabar Devaswom Board. After interview, Ext.P2 merit list was published, which contained the names of the petitioners. The fourth respondent had also participated in the selection process conducted pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. But, the fourth respondent's name was not included in Ext.P2 merit list and thereupon, he submitted Ext.P3 representation before the first respondent alleging that, in spite of the fourth respondent being a Post Graduate in Commerce and having continuous service with the Malabar Devaswom Board for the last 20 years, his name was excluded from the merit list, whereas the names of persons with much lesser qualification and without the requisite service were included in the merit list. Alleging that his representation was not being considered by the Government, the fourth respondent filed W.P.(C) No.16709 of 2016. Meanwhile, other writ petitions had also been filed by persons similarly situated as the fourth respondent, challenging the selection process and the merit list. W.P.(C) No.16709 of 2016 filed by the fourth respondent and similar cases filed by other disgruntled candidates were disposed of under Ext.P4 judgment directing the representation filed by the fourth respondent to be considered, after giving notice to the persons included in the merit list. It was also directed that appointments to the post of Executive Officer under the Malabar Devaswom Board shall be made only after disposing the representation filed by the fourth respondent. Even though the petitioners along with few other employees included in merit list challenged Ext.P4 judgment, that writ appeal was disposed of taking note of the fact that the Government had already issued notices of hearing to all concerned parties. The Division Bench further observed that the merit list, as prepared earlier would not lapse, as the time taken in these proceedings and the time in which the Board was restrained from making appointments has to be excluded. In terms of the direction contained in Ext.P4 judgment, the Government issued Ext.P7 order after hearing all parties concerned. By Ext.P7, the Government cancelled Ext.P2 merit list and directed the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board to prepare a fresh list strictly as per the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Rules (for short 'HR & CE'). The Government order was challenged unsuccessfully in W.P.(C) No.25821 of 2017 and is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.25819 of 2018.