IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

&

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH

WEDNESDAY, THE 31

ST

DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 11TH MAGHA, 1945

W.P.(C)NO.43139 OF 2023

PETITIONER/S:

R.G. RADHAKRISHNAN

AGED 58 YEARS

S/O R.GOPALAN NAIR, ARDRAM, AERA-35, ARAYALLOOR,

ELLUVILA NAGAR, THIRUMALA -P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,,

PIN - 695006

BY ADV D.AJITHKUMAR

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 JOINT DIRECTOR

KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM

BOARD AUDIT, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR POST,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

3 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE,

KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS

SECRETARY, PIN - 695003

4 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

5 CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER

(SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE -VIGILANCE), TRAVANCORE

2024/KER/11706

2

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

DEVASWOM BOARD, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

6 FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

7 DIRECTOR

VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, PMG, VIKAS

BHAVAN.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

8 C.N.RAMAN

DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE,

KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

9 DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN)., PIN

- 695003

BY ADVS.

SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR. GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1, R2 & R7

G.BIJU, SC TDB, R3 TO R6

SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R8

P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.)(S -793) FOR R8

P.ANIRUDHAN(K/002306/2021) FOR R8

PARVATHY SRIKUMAR(K/001674/2023) FOR R8

Nandagopal Nambiar V.V , FOR R9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

31.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2024/KER/11706

3

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

JUDGMENT C.R.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the entire records

leading to Ext.P8 proceedings dated 10.05.2023 and Ext.P23 order

dated 12.12.2023 of the 3

rd

respondent Board and quash the

same; a writ of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ, order

or direction to remove the 8

th

respondent from the post of

Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board; a writ of

mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the

3

rd

respondent Board to recover the liability found against the 8

th

respondent in Ext.P2 draft audit note of Thiruvallam Devaswom;

a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or

direction directing the State Vigilance to conduct an investigation

regarding the corruption and misappropriation of Devaswom funds

by the 8

th

respondent; and a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1

st

respondent

State and the 3

rd

respondent Board to strictly follow the

Travancore Devaswom Board Officers ’ and Servants’ Service

Rules, 2022 in the appointment of the Devaswom Commissioner.

1.1. In the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a

2024/KER/11706

4

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

Hindu by birth and a devotee, who retired from service on

31.01.2021 while working as Finance Commissioner in the 3

rd

respondent Board. In the writ petition, the petitioner has pointed

out the directions contained in the order of this Court dated

19.07.2022 in DBP No.22 of 2022, Ext.P4 judgment of this Court

dated 01.08.2023 in W.P(C) No.31159 of 2022 and also the

pendency of DBP No.40 of 2023.

1.2. On 21.12.2023, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on

admission for respondents 1, 2 and 7, the learned Standing

Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 3 to 6

and the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Devaswom

Recruitment Board for the 9

th

respondent. Notice on admission by

special messenger was ordered to the 8

th

respondent. The learned

Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed

to make available for the perusal of this Court, the files relating to

Ext.P23 order dated 12.12.2023 and the learned Standing Counsel

for Devaswom Recruitment Board, the files relating to Ext. P13

minutes of the meeting of the Department Promotion Committee

held on 24.08.2023.

1.3. On 21.12.2023, the learned Standing Counsel for

Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal

2024/KER/11706

5

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

of this Court, the files relating to Ext.P23 order dated 12.12.2023.

On 22.12.2023, the learned Standing Counsel for Devaswom

Recruitment Board, who took notice for the 9

th

respondent

Departmental Promotion Committee, made available for the

perusal of this Court the files relating to Ext.P13 minutes of the

meeting of the Department al Promotion Committee held on

24.08.2023. After perusal, the files handed over by the learned

Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board and the learned

Standing Counsel for Devaswom Recruitment Board were returned

to the respective counsel.

1.4. The 8

th

respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated

02.01.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition,

producing therewith Exts.R8(a) to R8(e) documents. The 3

rd

respondent Devaswom Board has filed a counter affidavit dated

03.01.2024 and the 9

th

respondent Departmental Promotion

Committee has filed a counter affidavit dated 30.12.2023,

opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

1.5. By the order dated 22.01.2024, the learned Standing

Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to make

available for the perusal of this Court, the files relating to the

report dated 18.05.2023 of the Finance and Accounts Officer

(Report No.FIO/319/23/IAD), the relevant files maintained in the

2024/KER/11706

6

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

office of the Finance and Accounts Officer, the office of the

Devaswom Commissioner and also the Board office, relating to

Ext.R7(f) proceedings dated 11.07.2023 in W.P(C)No.26259 of

2023 and proceedings No.ROC 14291/22/OAD dated 11.07.2023,

etc., of the Devaswom Commissioner.

2. W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023 referred to hereinbefore is

one filed by another Hindu by birth and a devotee, who retired

from service on 31.05.2010, while working as Deputy Devaswom

Commissioner (Inspection) in Travancore Devaswom Board. He

has filed that writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the entire records

leading to Ext.P7 statement regarding refixation of liability in

Thiruvallam Devaswom, in respect of respondents 7 to 11 therein

[the 7

th

respondent in W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023 is the 8

th

respondent in W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023] and quash the same; a

writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction

to call for the entire records leading Ext.P12 proceedings dated

25.08.2023 of the Travancore Devaswom Board, whereby the

select list prepared by the Devaswom Recruitment Board for the

post of Devaswom Commissioner in the Travancore Devaswom

Board, was approved. That select list contains the name of the 8

th

respondent in W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023. The petitioner has also

2024/KER/11706

7

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

sought for other consequential reliefs in W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023

and also a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order

or direction directing the State Vigilance to conduct an

investigation regarding the corruption and misappropriation of

Devaswom funds by respondents 7 to 11.

2.1. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the

notice of this Court by the learned Senior Counsel for respondents

8 to 10 in W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023 that there is an order of stay

in W.P.(C)No.19412 of 2022 filed by those respondents . In that

writ petition, a learned Single Judge of this Court granted a stay

of the operation of the order dated 05.04.2022 of the Travancore

Devaswom Board [Ext.P11 order in W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023] and

the order dated 18.04.2022. In view of the order of stay granted

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.19412 of 2022, which is

still in force, we find that the final disposal of W.P.(C)No.26259 of

2023 has to be deferred, for the time being.

3. DBP No.101 of 2023 is registered suo motu, vide

proceedings dated 09.10.2023, regarding appointment to the post

of Devaswom Commissioner in the Travancore Devaswom Board,

based on the complaint dated 01.09.2023 made by T.K. Kumaran

Potti, the complaint dated 26.09.2023 by Kumaran Nair K.P. and

the complaint dated nil by K.R. Ranjith. Regarding the

2024/KER/11706

8

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

appointment to the post of Devaswom Commissioner, a complaint

dated 01.09.2023 has been made by T.K. Kumaran Potti, who is

the General Convenor of Devaswom Board Pensioners Co -

ordination Committee, Nandancode, Thiruvananthapuram,

enclosing therewith a copy of the liability statement of Thiruvallam

Sub-Group for the month of April, 2022 issued by the Assistant

Audit Officer, Finance Committee Accounts Office, Travancore

Devaswom Board, in which the liability of the 10

th

respondent

therein [the 8

th

respondent in W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023] is shown

as Rs.10,56,650/-. In the complaint dated 01.09.2023, it is stated

that the above liability was reduced to Rs.1,11,872/- by adopting

illegal methods, bypassing the Committee constituted by the

Board vide Board Order No.ROC.25/21/OAD dated 15.02.20 21.

Though the 10

th

respondent has a total service of 29 years in the

Travancore Devaswom Board, till date he has not discharged

duties as Assistant Devaswom Commissioner or Deputy

Devaswom Commissioner or Group Assistant Devas wom

Commissioner and he was posted in various posts in the

Devaswom Head Quarters with comparatively lesser workload. In

the said complaint various allegations have also been levelled

against the 10

th

respondent including the allegation in connection

with the construction of an office complex by the Travancore

2024/KER/11706

9

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

Devaswom Employees Confederation State Committee, which was

the subject matter in W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 filed before this

Court, in which the Travancore Devaswom Employees

Confederation was arrayed as the 7

th

respondent. K.P. Kumaran

Nair has also submitted a similar complaint dated 26.09.2023

seeking interference of this Court. K.R. Ranjith, General Secretary

of Devaswom Employee Federation, has submitted a complaint

dated nil (File No.HCKL/3884/2023/D1 -4) against the 10

th

respondent - C.N. Raman. In the complaint made by T.K. Kumaran

Potti, it is pointed out that the term of B.S. Prakash, who is

presently holding the post of Devaswom Commissioner, will expire

on 15.10.2023.

3.1. W.P.(C)No.31159 of 2022 referred to in the complaint

made by T.K. Kumaran Potti was disposed of by the judgment

dated 01.08.2023, by setting aside the order dated 10.08.2020 of

the Travancore Devaswom Board and by directing the Board to

reconsider the matter with notice to the writ petitioner, the

representatives of the Travancore De vaswom Employees

Confederation and also the complainant, who submitted a

complaint dated 04.05.2023. In the said judgment this Court

found that the decision taken by the Travancore Devaswom Board

in the order dated 10.08.2020 to drop further proceedings in that

2024/KER/11706

10

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

complaint made by the writ petitioner, despite the

recommendation to the contra by the Chief Vigilance and Security

Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board warrants interference in

view of the law laid down by this Court in Suo Motu v. State of

Kerala [2022 (2) KHC 411] . In the complaint, the complainant

has referred to the said judgment of this Court.

3.2. On 09.10.2023, when DBP No.101 of 2023 came up for

consideration, it was pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel

for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the learned Senior

Government Pleader that the term of appointment of the present

incumbent holding the post of Devaswom Commissioner will

expire on 15.10.2023. They also pointed out th e pendency of

SLP(C)Nos.8254-55 of 2019 before the Apex Court, arising out of

the order of this Court dated 14.03.2019 in R.P.No.243 of 2019

and the order dated 31.01.2019 in DBP No.11 of 2017. In the

order dated 02.12.2019, the Apex Court noticed that the issue

raised with regard to the provisions, as contained in Section 13A

of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950,

requires detailed consideration and the Apex Court made an

interim arrangement clarifying the order of status quo passed by

that Court. By the order dated 09.10.2023, Registry was directed

to list DBP No.101 of 2023 on 11.10.2023, along with W.P.(C)

2024/KER/11706

11

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

No.26259 of 2023. A copy of Ext.P12 order dated 25.08.2023 in

W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023, whereby the Travancore Devaswom

Board granted approval for the select list for the post of Devaswom

Commissioner including the name of the 10

th

respondent in DBP

No.101 of 2023 [the 8

th

respondent in W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023],

was directed to be incorporated in the Judge’s papers of DBP

No.101 of 2023. During the course of arguments, the learned

counsel for the 10

th

respondent in DBP No.101 of 2023 [the 8

th

respondent in W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023] would submit that, since

the final disposal of W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023 has been deferred

in view of the order of stay granted by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.(C)No.19412 of 2022, which is still in force, DBP No.101 of

2023 may be listed along with W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023. We find

that the final disposal of DBP No.101 of 2023 has to be deferred,

for the time being, which is ordered to be listed along with

W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023.

4. In the order dated 11.10.2023 in DBP Nos.40 and 101

of 2023 and W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023 this Court noticed that the

Devaswom Commissioner is the Chief Executive Officer in the

Travancore Devaswom Board, who is the disciplinary authority of

the Devaswom employees . In addition to this, the Devaswom

Commissioner is also the Member Secretary of the High Power

2024/KER/11706

12

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

Committee for Implementation of the Sabarimala Master Plan,

headed by a former Judge of this Court. In W.P.(C)No.26259 of

2023, which is one filed seeking various reliefs against

respondents 7 to 11 therein, a challenge against the order dated

25.08.2023 of the Travancore Devaswom Board [Ext.P11 order in

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023] is also made by way of amendment .

The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board

submitted that after the issuance of Ext.P12 Board order, vigilance

clearance from the State Vigilance for clearing the name of the

10

th

respondent [the 8

th

respondent in W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023]

is pending. The learned Senior Government Pleader submit ted

that since the term of appointment of B.S. Prakash, the present

incumbent holding the post of Devaswom Commissioner, will

expire by 18.10.2023, the State Government proposes to file an

application in SLP(C)Nos.8254-55 of 2019 pending before the

Apex Court seeking appropriate orders.

5. Along with a memo dated 21.10.2023 of the learned

Senior Government Pleader a copy of the Government Order dated

19.10.2023 is placed on record. The 10

th

respondent has filed an

affidavit dated 20.11.2023, producing therewith Annexure R10(a)

and R10(b) documents.

6. Heard learned Senior Government Pleader for

2024/KER/11706

13

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

respondents 1, 2 and 7, the learned Standing Counsel for

Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 3 to 6 , the learned

Senior Counsel for the 8

th

respondent and the learned Standing

Counsel for Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board for the 9

th

respondent.

7. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act,

1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the

administration, supervision and control of incorporated and

unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious

Endowments and Funds. As per sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the

Act, substituted by the Kerala Adaptation of Laws Order, 1956,

Part I of the Act shall extend to Travancore, Part II of the Act shall

extend to Cochin and Part III of the Act shall extend to the whole

of the State of Kerala, excluding the Malabar District. Clause (a)

of Section 2 of the Act defines the term ‘Board’ to mean the

Travancore Devaswom Board constituted under Chapter II of the

Act in accordance with the covenant. Clause (c) of Section 2

defines the term ‘incorporated Devaswoms’ to mean the

Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I , and ‘unincorporated

Devaswoms’ to mean those Devaswoms including Hindu Religious

Endowments whether in or outside Travancore which were under

the management of the Ruler of Travancore and which have

2024/KER/11706

14

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

separate accounts of income and expenditure and are separately

dealt with.

7.1. Chapter II of the Act deals with the Travancore

Devaswom. Section 3 of the Act deals with the vesting of

administration in the Board. As per Section 3, the administration

of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of Hindu

Religious Endowments and all their properties and funds as well

as the fund constituted under the Devaswom Proclamation, 1097

M.E. and the surplus fund constituted under the Devaswom

(Amendment) Proclamation, 1122 M.E. which were under the

management of the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of

July, 1949, except the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Sree

Pandaravaka properties and all other properties and funds of the

said temple, and the management of all institutions which were

under the Devaswom Department shall vest in the Travancore

Devaswom Board.

7.2. Section 15 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction

in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 15, subject to the

provisions of Chapter III of Part I, all rights, authority and

jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Travancore

prior to the first day of July, 1949, in respect of Devaswoms and

Hindu Religious Endowments shall vest in and be exercised by the

2024/KER/11706

15

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

Board in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As per sub-

section (2) of Section 15, the Board shall exercise all powers of

direction, control and supervision over the incorporated and

unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Endowments

under their jurisdiction.

7.3. Section 15A of the Act, inserted by Act 5 of 2007, with

effect from 12.04.2007, deals with the duties of the Board. As per

Section 15A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the

following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional

rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the

religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor

whether the administrative officials and employees and also the

employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly;

(iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu

religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper

facilities in the temples for the devotees. Section 16 of the Act

deals with supervision and control by the Board. As per Section

16, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part I of the Act,

exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of

all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom

Department.

7.4. Section 24 of the Act deals with the maintenance of

2024/KER/11706

16

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

Devaswoms, etc., out of the Devaswom Fund. As per Section 24,

the Board shall, out of the Devaswom Fund constituted under

Section 25, maintain the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I [i.e.

incorporated Devaswoms], keep in a state of good repair the

temples, buildings, and other appurtenances thereto, administer

the said Devaswoms in accordance with recognised usages , make

contributions to other Devaswoms in or outside the State and

meet the expenditure for the customary religious ceremonies and

may provide for the educational upliftment, social and cultural

advancement and economic betterment of the Hindu community.

7.5. Section 27 of the Act deals with Devaswom properties.

As per Section 27, immovable properties entered or classed in the

revenue records as Devaswom Vaga or Devaswom Poramboke and

such other Pandaravaga lands as are in the possession or

enjoyment of the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I after the

30

th

Meenam, 1097 corresponding to the 12

th

April, 1922, shall be

dealt with as Devaswom properties. The provisions of the Land

Conservancy Act of 1091 (IV of 1091) shall be applicable to

Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands. Section 31

of the Act deals with the management of Devaswoms. As per

Section 31, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made

thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of

2024/KER/11706

17

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

the Devaswoms , both incorporated and unincorporated as

heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and

ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its

usage.

8. In Ram Mohan Das v. Travancore Devaswom

Board and others [1975 KLT 55] a learned Single Judge of this

Court held that under Section 31 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu

Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board shall

manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both

incorporated and unincorporated and arrange for the conduct of

the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every

temple according to its usage. The position of the Board in regard

to the Devaswoms - incorporated and unincorporated - is

analogous to that of trustees. Any improper act of the Trustees

could be questioned by a worshipper.

8.1. In M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara

[(1979) 2 SCC 65], in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of

the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the

fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It

is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust

and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the

manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his

2024/KER/11706

18

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

own affairs. A trustee could not therefore, occasion any loss to the

Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was

necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads

thus;

“4. There is some controversy on the question whether

Defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for

and on behalf of the trust for Rs 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or

whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided

to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence

to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs 21,500,

which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by

the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he

palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid

sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however,

remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it

was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with

reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of

business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore

occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty to sell the

property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has

in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in

a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit

for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid

that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which

a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and

so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by

Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51

that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for

his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the

trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the

trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on

his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy

2024/KER/11706

19

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties

as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to

the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the

aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale

in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact

and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a

trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust,

without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, witho ut

obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of

the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether

the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he

has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from

the transaction in an indirect manner. The sale in question has

therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court

committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the

law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.”

(underline supplied)

8.2. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom

Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex

Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom

Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their

trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many

where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and

safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom

Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by

setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse

possession. This is possible only with the passive or active

collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fences eating

2024/KER/11706

20

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members

or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to

prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty

of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and

charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.

8.3. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair

[2013 (3) KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that

in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] the Apex Court

emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and

safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and

charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law

will show that the deity is always treated similar to that of a minor

and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a

Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the deity

and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land

Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is

having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will

also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a

complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee,

which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss

of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be

gone into by the High Court in these proceedings.

2024/KER/11706

21

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

8.4. In Rajani P. Kuttan and another v. State of Kerala

and others [2021 (6) KHC 513] a Division Bench of this Court

noticed that among the 1250 Temples managed by the Travancore

Devaswom Board, only 60 major Temples are self -sufficient and

the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from

Sabarimala Devaswom . The total number of sanctioned posts in

various categories in the Travancore Devaswom Board is 5692 and

the total number of pensioners is 5749. The major source of

revenue of the Travancore Devaswom Board is the income

received by way of offering by the devotees, the amount received

from vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of

temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals

and festivals in the Temples. Paragraph 59 of the said decision

reads thus;

“59. The Financial position of the Devaswom Board:- The

competent officer of the Devaswom Board filed an affidavit

dated 14.06.2021 stating its financial position. It is

submitted that there are 1250 temples under the

Administrative Control of the Devaswom Board. The total

number of sanctioned posts in various categories in the

Devaswom Board is 5692, and the total number of

pensioners is 5749. It is further submitted that the major

sources of revenue of the Devaswom Board are the income

received by way of offerings from devotees, the amount

received from vazhipadu, and the revenue generated

2024/KER/11706

22

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

through the auction of the temple premises for various

activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the

temples. Besides this, the Devaswom Board gets an

approximate sum of 14 crores per annum by way of the

rent of the buildings owned by it. The annual contribution

from the State Government under Article 290A of the

Constitution of India is Rs.80 lakhs. It is further submitted

that among the 1250 temples managed by the Devaswom

Board, only 60 major temples are self-sufficient, and the

rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from

Sabarimala Devaswom . Now, due to the spread of the

Covid-19 pandemic, the temples remain closed, and the

major source of income has come down. The Devaswom

Board is finding it difficult even to pay the salary of the

existing employees. The pleadings regarding the financial

position of the Devaswom Board in the affidavit dated

14.06.2021 have not been controverted by the petitioners.”

(underline supplied)

8.5. In Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022

(2) KHC 411] this Court held that, in view of the provisions under

the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and also

the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the

Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper

administration, supervision and control of Sabarimala Devaswom,

which is an incorporated Devaswom mentioned in Schedule I of

the said Act, under the Chengannur Group. The Board has a

statutory duty to monitor whether its administrative officials and

2024/KER/11706

23

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

employees and also the employees connected with religious rites

are functioning properly. The Board is duty bound to exercise

proper supervision and control over the acts and proceedings of

all officers and servants and to manage the properties and affairs

of Sabarimala Devaswom and conduct daily worships and

ceremonies and also festivals in the temple according to its usage.

Position of the Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees,

as held by this Court in Ram Mohan Das [1975 KLT 55] . Any

improper act of the trustees could be questioned by a worshiper.

The Board and those entrusted with the duty of managing the

properties and affairs of Sabarimala Devaswom are duty bound to

protect the properties of the deity from any wrongful claims, theft

or misappropriation. Any such wrongful claims, theft or

misappropriation with the passive or active collusion of the

authorities concerned, which are acts of 'fences eating the crops'

should be dealt with sternly. Since the deity being a perpetual

minor, this Court is having inherent jurisdiction to protect and

safeguard the interest and properties of the deity and the doctrine

of parens patriae will also apply in the exercise of such jurisdiction.

9. DBP No.22 of 2022 was registered suo motu, vide

proceedings dated 15.06.2022, based on a complaint dated

13.06.2022 made by a devotee of Lord Ayyappa alleging serious

2024/KER/11706

24

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

irregularities in the posting of Devaswom Staff at Sabarimala and

in Sreekandeshwaram Temple, Kottarakkara Temple, etc. That

DBP was disposed of by the order dated 19.07.2022 – Suo motu

v. State of Kerala and others [2022:KER:37818] - whereby

the Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to take necessary

steps to ensure that, before posting any Administrative

Officer/Executive Officer in major temples like Ettumanoor Sree

Mahadeva Temple, Vaikom Sree Mahadeva Temple,

Chettikulangara Sree Bhagavathi Temple, P.D.Manikanteswaram

Temple, Kottarakkara, Thiruvallam Sree Parasurama Swami

Temple, Sreekanteswaram Mahadeva Temple, Malayalappuzha

Devi Temple and Valliyam Kavu Devi Temple, the credentials of

the officer concerned are ascertained through the report of the

Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Security Wing. It was

ordered that, while ordering transfers and postings, the Board

shall ensure that only efficient and upright officers are posted as

Administrative Officers/Executive Officers in major temples under

its management. Paragraph 19 of that order in DBP No.22 of 2022

reads thus;

“19. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and

also the submissions made at the Bar, we find that no interference

is warranted in the posting of Sri.H. Krishnakumar as the

Executive Officer, Sabarimala and Sri.N. Sreedhara Sharma as the

2024/KER/11706

25

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

Administrative Officer, Erumeli Devaswom, for the reasons noticed

hereinbefore at paragraph 5 of this order. In view of the provisions

under Section 15A of the Act, it is the duty of the Board to monitor

whether the Administrative officials and the employees and also

the employees connected with religious rites are functioning

properly. The position of the Board in this regard is analogues to

that of Trustees, as held by this Court in Ram Mohan Das [1975

KLT 55]. Any improper act of the Trustees could be questioned

by a worshiper. The Board is duty bound to protect the properties

of the deity from any wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation.

In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the 2

nd

respondent Travancore Devaswom Board to take necessary steps

to ensure that, before posting any Administrative

Officer/Executive Officer in major temples like Ettumanoor Sree

Mahadeva Temple, Vaikom Sree Mahadeva Temple,

Chettikulangara Sree Bhagavathi Temple, P.D. Manikanteswaram,

Kottarakkara, Thiruvallam Sree Parasurama Swami Temple,

Sreekanteswaram Mahadeva temple, Malayalappuzha Devi

Temple and Valliyam Kavu Devi Temple, the credentials of the

officer concerned are ascertained through the report of the 4

th

respondent Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Security Wing.

The said report shall be placed before the Board, which shall

consider that report before ordering the transfer and posting of

the Administrative Officer/Executive Officer in major temples.

While ordering transfers and postings, the Board shall ensure that,

only efficient and upright officers are posted as Administrative

Officer/Executive Officer in major temples under its management.

The Board is directed to review the transfer and postings of

Administrative Officer/Executive Officer in major temples, after

obtaining the report of the 4

th

respondent on the credentials of

such officers. The exercise in this regard shall be completed within

a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified

copy of this order.” (underline supplied)

9.1. By an earlier order dated 13.07.2022 – Suo Motu v.

2024/KER/11706

26

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

State of Kerala and others [2022:KER:36060] - DBP No.21 of

2022, which was registered suo motu, based on the order of this

Court dated 09.06.2023 in DBA No.4 of 2022, was disposed of by

directing the Travancore Devaswom Board to ensure that before

posting any officer/staff in the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore

Devaswom Board having offices at Thir uvananthapuram,

Mavelikkara and Vaikom, the credentials of the officer/staff

concerned are ascertained through the report of the

Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Security Wing of the

Board. The said report shall be placed before the Board, which

shall consider that report before ordering the transfer and posting

of any officer/staff in the Vigilance Wing of the Board having

offices at Thiruvananthapuram, Mavelikkara and Vaikom. While

ordering transfers and postings, the Board shall ensure that, only

efficient and upright officers/staff are posted in the Vigilance Wing

of the Board.

9.2. The directions in the order dated 13.07.2022 in DBP

No.21 of 2022 and that contained in the order dated 19.07.2022

in DBP No.22 of 2022 were issued so as to ensure that only

efficient and upright officers/staff are posted in the Vigilance Wing

of the Travancore Devaswom Board and also in major temples

under its management.

2024/KER/11706

27

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

10. DBP No.40 of 2023 was registered suo motu, vide

proceedings dated 05.06.2023, in the matter of credentials of

Devaswom staff posted at various temples, since various

complaints are being received from the devotees, office bearers of

Employees’ Federation, etc., pointing out various issues regarding

the transfer and posting of Devaswom staff in the Vigilance Wing

of the Travancore Devaswom Board having offices at

Thiruvananthapuram, Mavelikkara and Vaikom and the order

dated 19.07.2022 in DBP No.22 of 2022, regarding the posting of

Administrative Officer/Executive Officer in major temples.

10.1. In the order dated 07.06.2023 in DBP No.40 of 2023,

this Court noticed that, even after the issuance of the directions

in DBP Nos.21 and 22 of 2022, the devotees, office bearers of

Employees’ Federation, etc., are submitting various complaints

before this Court. Five of such complaints are marked in DBP

No.40 of 2023 as Annexures A1 to A5. Annexure A5 is a complaint

dated nil, made by K.R. Ranjith against the 8

th

respondent herein

in W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023, who was the Administrative Officer

of Thiruvallam Devaswom. On 07.06.2023, two more complaints

were marked as Annexures A6 and A7. On 23.06.2023, eight

more complaints were marked as Annexures A8 to A15. On

25.09.2023, one more complaint was marked as Annexure A16.

2024/KER/11706

28

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

By the order dated 23.08.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023, the petitioner

in W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023 was impleaded as additional 6

th

respondent in DBP No.40 of 2023.

11. The learned Senior Counsel for the 8

th

respondent

would rely on the decision of the Apex Court in R.K. Jain v. Union

of India [(1993) 4 SCC 119] to contend that this Court, in the

exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of

the 3

rd

respondent Travancore Devaswom Board in the choice of a

person to be promoted as Devaswom Commissioner. Further, the

legality or otherwise of the order of promotion granted to the 8

th

respondent cannot be decided in a writ petition filed by a person

other than an aggrieved person.

11.1. In R.K. Jain [(1993) 4 SCC 119], the Apex Court was

considering the question of appointment of the 3

rd

respondent

therein as the President of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control)

Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The Apex Court held that the Court

cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Central Government

in the choice of the person to be appointed as a President of CEGAT

so long as the person chosen possesses the prescribed

qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment. The Court

cannot interfere with the appointment of the 3

rd

respondent on the

2024/KER/11706

29

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

ground that his track record was poor or because of adverse

reports on which account his appointment as a High Court Judge

had not materialised. In paragraph 73, the Apex Court noticed that

in Shrikumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India [(1992) 2 SCC

428] K.N. Srivastava did not possess the requisite qualifications

for appointment as a Judge of the High Court prescribed under

Article 217 of the Constitution, namely, that he was not a District

Judge for 10 years in State Higher Judicial Service, which is a

mandatory requirement for a valid appointment. Therefore, the

Apex Court declared that he was not qualified to be appointed as

a Judge of the High Court and quashed his appointment

accordingly. In paragraph 74, the Apex Court noticed that the

evaluation of comparative merits of the applicants for appointment

as President of CEGAT cannot be gone into in a public interest

litigation, which can be considered only in proceedings initiated by

an aggrieved person. The Apex Court noticed that the writ petition

is not a writ of quo warranto. Paragraphs 6, 73 and 74 of that

decision read thus;

“6. Shri Harish Chandra was a Senior Vice-President when

the question of filling up the vacancy of the President came

up for consideration. He was fully qualified for the post

under the Rules. No challenge is made on that count. Under

Rule 10(1) the Central Government is conferred the power

2024/KER/11706

30

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

to appoint one of the members to be the President. Since

the validity of the Rule is not questioned there can be no

doubt that the Central Government was entitled to appoint

respondent 3 as the President. But it was said that the track

record of respondent 3 was poor and he was hardly fit to

hold the post of the President of the CEGAT. It has been

averred that respondent 3 had been in the past proposed

for appointment as a Judge of the Delhi High Court but his

appointment did not materialise due to certain adverse

reports. Assuming for the sake of argument that these

allegations are factually accurate, this Court cannot sit in

judgment over the choice of the person made by the Central

Government for appointment as a President if the person

chosen is qualified and eligible for appointment under the

Rules. We, therefore, agree with our learned Brother that

this Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the

Central Government in the choice of the person to be

appointed as a President so long as the person chosen

possesses the prescribed qualification and is otherwise

eligible for appointment. We, therefore, cannot interfere

with the appointment of respondent 3 on the ground that

his track record was poor or because of adverse reports on

which account his appointment as a High Court Judge had

not materialised.

xxx xxx xxx

73. Judicial review is concerned with whether the incumbent

possessed of qualification for appointment and the manner

in which the appointment came to be made or the procedure

adopted whether fair, just and reasonable. The exercise of

judicial review is to protect the citizen from the abuse of the

power etc. by an appropriate Government or department

2024/KER/11706

31

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

etc. In our considered view granting the compliance of the

above power of appointment was conferred on the executive

and confided to be exercised wisely. When a candidate was

found qualified and eligible and was accordingly appointed

by the executive to hold an office as a Member or Vice-

President or President of a Tribunal, we cannot sit over the

choice of the selection, but it be left to the executive to

select the personnel as per law or procedure in this behalf.

In Shrikumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India [(1992)

2 SCC 428] K.N. Srivastava, M.J.S., Legal Remembrancer,

Secretary of Law and Justice, Government of Mizoram did

not possess the requisite qualifications for appointment as

a Judge of the High Court prescribed under Article 217 of

the Constitution, namely, that he was not a District Judge

for 10 years in State Higher Judicial Service, which is a

mandatory requirement for a valid appointment. Therefore,

this Court declared that he was not qualified to be appointed

as a Judge of the High Court and quashed his appointment

accordingly. The facts therein are clearly glaring and so the

ratio is distinguishable.

74. Shri Harish Chander, admittedly was the Senior Vice -

President at the relevant time. The contention of Shri Thakur

of the need to evaluate the comparative merits of Mr Harish

Chander and Mr Kalyansundaram a seniormost member for

appointment as President would not be gone into in a public

interest litigation. Only in a proceedings initiated by an

aggrieved person it may be open to be considered. This writ

petition is also not a writ of quo warranto . In service

jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved

person i.e. non-appointee to assail the legality of the

offending action. Third party has no locus standi to canvass

2024/KER/11706

32

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

the legality or correctness of the action. Only public law

declaration would be made at the behest of the petitioner, a

public-spirited person.” (underline supplied)

11.2. The law laid down by the Apex Court in R.K. Jain

[(1993) 4 SCC 119] is to the effect that so long as the person

chosen possesses prescribed qualification and if he is otherwise

eligible for appointment as per the rules, the Writ Court cannot sit

in judgment over the wisdom of the employer in the choice of the

person to be appointed. The evaluation of comparative merits of

the applicants for appointment cannot be gone into in a public

interest litigation, which can be considered only in proceedings

initiated by an aggrieved person. The exception to this principle is

a writ petition seeking writ of quo warranto.

11.3. The learned Senior Counsel for the 8

th

respondent

would rely on the decision in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad

Mahto [(2010) 9 SCC 655] , wherein the Apex Court reiterated

that in service matters Public Interest Litigations should not be

entertained. The Apex Court noticed that except for a writ of quo

warranto, public interest litigation is not maintainable in service

matters. A writ of quo warranto lies only when the appointment is

contrary to a statutory provision. Paragraphs 12 to 19 of that

decision read thus;

“12. We have already pointed out that the person who

2024/KER/11706

33

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

approached the High Court by way of a public interest

litigation is not a competitor or eligible to be considered as

a member or Chairman of the Board but according to him,

he is a Vidyut Shramik leader. Either before the High Court

or in this Court, he has not placed any material or

highlighted in what way he is suitable and eligible for that

post.

13. In Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra

[(1998) 7 SCC 273] a Three-Judge Bench of this Court

held: (SCC p. 281, para 18)

“18. … If public interest litigations at the

instance of strangers are allowed to be

entertained by the Tribunal, the very object of

speedy disposal of service matters would get

defeated.”

In para 21, this Court reiterated as under: (SCC p. 283)

“21. In the result, we answer the first question

in the negative and hold that the Administrative

Tribunal constituted under the Act cannot

entertain a public interest litigation at the

instance of a total stranger.”

14. In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. [(2004) 3

SCC 349] this Court held thus: (SCC pp. 358-59, para 16)

“16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed

out the petitions, which though titled as public

interest litigations are in essence something

else. It is shocking to note that courts are

flooded with a large number of so-called public

interest litigations where even a minuscule

percentage can legitimately be called public

interest litigations. Though the parameters of

2024/KER/11706

34

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

public interest litigation have been indicated by

this Court in a large number of cases, yet

unmindful of the real intentions and objectives,

courts are entertaining such petitions and

wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted

above, could be otherwise utilised for disposal

of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu

(Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7

SCC 273] this Court held that in service

matters PILs should not be entertained, the

inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters

continues unabated in the courts and strangely

are entertained. The least the High Courts could

do is to throw them out on the basis of the said

decision. The other interesting aspect is that in

the PILs, official documents are being annexed

without even indicating as to how the petitioner

came to possess them. In one case, it was

noticed that an interesting answer was given as

to its possession. It was stated that a packet

was lying on the road and when out of curiosity

the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the

official documents. Whenever such frivolous

pleas are taken to explain possession, the courts

should do well not only to dismiss the petitions

but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be

desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous

petitions and dismiss them with costs as

aforestated so that the message goes in the

right direction that petitions filed with oblique

motive do not have the approval of the courts.”

2024/KER/11706

35

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

The same principles have been reiterated in the subsequent

decisions, namely, B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of

India [(2004) 3 SCC 363] , Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware

v. State of Maharashtra [(2005) 1 SCC 590]

and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2005) 5 SCC

136].

15. The above principles make it clear that except for a writ

of quo warranto, public interest litigation is not maintainable

in service matters.

Writ of quo warranto

16. A writ of quo warranto lies only when appointment is

contrary to a statutory provision. In High Court of Gujarat

v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat [(2003) 4 SCC

712] (Three-Judge Bench) Hon'ble S.B. Sinha, J. concurring

with the majority view held: (SCC pp. 730-31, paras 22-23)

“22. The High Court in exercise of its writ

jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required

to determine at the outset as to whether a case

has been made out for issuance of a writ of

certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The

jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of

quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing

such a writ, the Court merely makes a public

declaration but will not consider the respective

impact of the candidates or other factors which

may be relevant for the issuance of a writ of

certiorari. See: R.K. Jain v. Union of India

[(1993) 4 SCC 119] , SCC para 74.

23. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued

when the appointment is contrary to the

statutory rules. See: Mor Modern Coop.

2024/KER/11706

36

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

Transport Society Ltd. v. Govt. of

Haryana [(2002) 6 SCC 269] .”

17. In Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society

Ltd. v. Govt. of Haryana [(2002) 6 SCC 269] the

following conclusion in para 11 is relevant: (SCC p. 275)

“11. … The High Court did not exercise its writ

jurisdiction in the absence of any averment to

the effect that the aforesaid officers had

misused their authority and acted in a manner

prejudicial to the interest of the appellants. In

our view the High Court should have considered

the challenge to the appointment of the officials

concerned as members of the Regional

Transport Authority on the ground of breach of

statutory provisions. The mere fact that they

had not acted in a manner prejudicial to the

interest of the appellant could not lend validity

to their appointment , if otherwise, the

appointment was in breach of statutory

provisions of a mandatory nature. It has,

therefore, become necessary for us to consider

the validity of the impugned notification said to

have been issued in breach of statutory

provision.”

18. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water

Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn. [(2006)

11 SCC 731 (2)] this Court held: (SCC p. 754, para 49)

“49. The law is well settled. The High Court in

exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this

nature is required to determine, at the outset,

as to whether a case has been made out for

2024/KER/11706

37

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

issuance of a writ of quo warranto. The

jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of

quo warranto is a limited one which can only be

issued when the appointment is contrary to the

statutory rules.”

19. It is clear from the above decisions that even for

issuance of a writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to

satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory

rules. In the latter part of our judgment, we would discuss

how the appellant herein was considered and appointed as

Chairman and whether he satisfied the relevant statutory

provisions.”

11.4. In Neetu v. State of Punjab [(2007) 10 SCC 614] ,

another decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the

8

th

respondent, the Apex Court noticed that the scope of

entertaining a petition styled as a Public Interest Iitigation, the

locus standi of the petitioner, particularly in matters involving

service of an employee, has been examined by the Apex Court in

various cases.

11.5. In Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee v.

C.K. Rajan [(2003) 7 SCC 546] , another decision relied on by

the learned Senior Counsel for the 8

th

respondent, the Apex Court

noticed that administration of a temple by entertaining complaints

does not lead to a happy state of affairs. Roving enquiry is not

contemplated. Principles of natural justice and fair play ought to

2024/KER/11706

38

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

be followed even in the pro bono publico proceedings. The courts,

undoubtedly, would be a parens patriae in relation to idols, but

when the statute governs the field and the State takes over the

management, ordinarily, the courts would not step in. A Reading

of paragraphs 66 and 76 of that decision would make it explicitly

clear that the observations made by the Apex Court were in the

context of an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in

appointing a Commissioner in the matter of administ ration of

Guruvayur Temple, which is under the management of Guruvayur

Devaswom Managing Committee.

11.6. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Suo Motu

v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (2) KHC 411] in view of

the provisions under the Travancore -Cochin Hindu Religious

Institutions Act and also the law laid down in M.V.Ramasubbiar

[(1979) 2 SCC 65] , A.A.Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC

482], Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] , etc., the Travancore

Devaswom Board is duty bound to ensure proper administration,

supervision and control of the Devaswoms under its management .

The Board has a statutory duty to monitor whether its

administrative officials and employees and also the employees

connected with religious rites are functioning properly. The Board

is duty bound to exercise proper supervision and control over the

2024/KER/11706

39

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

acts and proceedings of all officers and servants and to manage

the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms under its

management and conduct daily worships and ceremonies and also

festivals in the temple according to its usage. Position of the Board

in this regard is analogous to that of trustees, as held by this Court

in Ram Mohan Das [1975 KLT 55] . Any improper act of the

trustees could be questioned by a worshiper. In terms of the

directions issued by this Court in DBP No.22 of 2022 – Suo

Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022:KER:37818] and

the order in DBP No.21 of 2022 – Suo Motu v. State of

Kerala and others [2022:KER:36060] , while posting officers

in major Devaswoms and also in the Vigilance Wing of the

Travancore Devaswom Board, it has to be ensured that only

efficient and upright officers/staff are posted at those places.

12. Chapter XV of the Travancore Devaswom Manual

Volume - I – Office Manual – deals with organization chart of the

Board, which provides the duties and powers of various officers

under the Board. As per Chapter XV, the Devaswom Commissioner

shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of

Devaswoms and the Hindu Religious Endowments. He shall be

responsible to carry out all the directions and orders issued by the

Board from time to time. He shall supervise and control the

2024/KER/11706

40

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

working of the subordinate officers of the Department. He shall

regulate the expenditure within the sanctioned ‘Pathivus’ and

estimates. He shall watch and collect the receipts from all sources

due to the Devaswom funds and all other institutions under him.

12.1. The powers of the Devaswom Commissioner

enumerated in Chapter XV of the Travancore Devaswom Manual

Volume - I – Office Manual – includes that as disciplinary authority

for all non-gazatted employees of the Devaswom Department,

including temple employees. Chapter XV provides the duties and

powers of other posts in the Travancore Devaswom Board in the

gazetted cadre, which mainly consists of the Devaswom

Commissioner, Deputy Devaswom Commissioner and Assistant

Devaswom Commissioner.

12.2. In Ext.P14 order dated 14.03.2019 in SSCR No.2 of

2019 and R.P.No.243 of 2019 in DBP No.11 of 2017, this Court

noticed that the post of Devaswom Commissioner is of pivotal

importance, considering the powers, duties and responsibilities to

be exercised by the Commissioner as per the statue and the

person requires to be one who will protect the rights and interests

of the deity, Devotees and Devaswom in all respects. In paragraph

11 of that order, this Court held that the power of appointment

vested with the Devaswom does never get automatically

2024/KER/11706

41

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

transferred to the Government, for identifying a person of their

choice, even compromising with the rights and interests of the

Devaswom, to be appointed as the Commissioner. The

Government cannot say or insist that the Devaswom will have to

be satisfied with the person identified or nominated by the

Government. It is always open for the Devaswom to refuse to

appoint the person nominated by the Government, if he has a

blemished track record or if he is otherwise not suitable to be

appointed for meeting the responsibilities of the Commissioner, to

be discharged under the statute protecting the larger interests of

the deity and the devotees. In paragraph 13 of Ext.P14 order, this

Court noticed that during the annual festival of Sabarimala Temple

various tasks and responsibilities have to be met by the

Commissioner, by virtue of which the post cannot be left vacant.

In paragraph 16 of that order, this Court noticed that the

Devaswom Commissioner happens to be the Member Secretary of

the High Power Committee appointed by this Court.

12.3. Ext.P14 order of this Court dated 14.03.2019 in SSCR

No.2 of 2019 and R.P.No.243 of 2019 in DBP No.11 of 2017 was

under challenge before the Apex Court in SLP(C)No s.8254-55 of

2019. In those special leave petitions, the Apex Court granted an

order of status quo, vide Ext.P15 order dated 08.04.2019, which

2024/KER/11706

42

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

was followed by Ext.P16 order dated 09.12.2019 and Ext.P17

order dated 02.03.2021. Seeking permission to appoint the 8

th

respondent as Devaswom Commissioner by way of promotion , the

State filed Ext.P18 interlocutory application before the Apex Court

and for approval of a panel of officers for appointment as

Devaswom Commissioner by way of deputation, after the date of

superannuation of the 8

th

respondent on 31.01.2024. The

Travancore Devaswom Board has also filed Ext.P19 application,

seeking modification of Ext.P15 order dated 08.04.2019 and to

allow the Board to make the appointment of Devaswom

Commissioner. Before the Apex Court, the petitioner herein filed

Ext.P20 application for intervention, pointing out various aspects,

including the irregularity in the constitution of the Departmental

Promotion Committee.

12.4. On 08.12.2023, when those applications came up for

consideration, the Apex Court disposed of SLP(C)Nos.8254-55 of

2019, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case

including the fact of the rules, giving liberty to the State, the

Travancore Devaswom Board and the petitioner herein, who filed

application for intervention, to raise all the contentions before this

Court. It is thereafter that the 3

rd

respondent Travancore

Devaswom Board issued Ext.P23 proceedings 12.12.2023 ,

2024/KER/11706

43

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

whereby, the 8

th

respondent has been promoted to the cadre of

Devaswom Commissioner. Ext.P23 order was followed by Ext.P22

order dated 12.12.2023, whereby the deputation of the then

Devaswom Commissioner – Sri. B.S. Prakash, Additional Secretary

to Government, was terminated and he was relieved from the

service of the Travancore Devaswom Board.

12.5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel

for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the

State, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom

Board and also the learned Senior Counsel for the 8

th

respondent

addressed arguments on the procedure adopted by the 3

rd

respondent Travancore Devaswom Board in issuing Ext.P23 order,

without approaching this Court with an appropriate application.

12.6. It is pertinent to note that the Mandala-Makaravilakku

festival season for the year 1199 ME (2023-24) commenced on

16.11.2023. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala filed SSCR

No.31 of 2023, regarding the expiry of tenure and the probable

transfer of officers whose services are pivotal to the smooth

conduct of the festival, wherein it was pointed out that the District

Collector, Pathanamthitta, is likely to be transferred. In that

report, it was pointed out that the tenure of the office of the

Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board would

2024/KER/11706

44

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

also expire on 18.11.2023. In that SSCR, this Court passed an

order dated 07.11.2023. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that order read

thus;

“3. The new incumbents have already taken charge as the

District Collector, Pathanamthitta and the District Police

Chief, Pathanamthitta. The term of the Devaswom

Commissioner, which expired on 18.10.2023, has already

been extended by the State Government. The learned

Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would

point out the pendency of SLP(C)Nos.8254 -55 of 2019

before the Apex Court, arising out of the order of this Court

dated 14.03.2019 in R.P.No.243 of 2019 and order dated

31.01.2019 in DBP No.11 of 2017.

4. Regarding the expiry of the term of the President and the

Member of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned

Senior Government Pleader would submit that the

Government shall take a decision on the said aspect before

the expiry of their term of appointment.”

12.7. In terms of Ext.P23 order dated 12.12.2023, the 8

th

respondent assumed charge as Devaswom Commissioner on

13.12.2023. As noticed by this Court in Ext.P14 order dated

14.03.2019 in SSCR No.2 of 2019 and R.P.No.243 of 2019 in DBP

No.11 of 2017, which was under challenge before the Apex Court

in SLP(C)Nos.8254-55 of 2019, the post of Devaswom

Commissioner is of pivotal importance, considering the powers,

duties and responsibilities to be exercised by the Commissioner as

2024/KER/11706

45

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

per the statute and the person requires to be one who will protect

the rights and interests of the deity, devotees and Devaswom in

all respects. In paragraph 13 of Ext.P14 order, the Division Bench

noticed that during the annual festival of Sabarimala Temple

various tasks and responsibilities have to be met by the

Commissioner, by virtue of which the post cannot be left vacant.

The change effected in the office of Devaswom Commissioner on

13.12.2023, during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season was

never brought to the notice of this Court. In SSCR No.29 of 2023

and connected matters, this Court has issued various directions

on crowd management and pilgrim facilities at Sabarimala and

also at various Sabarimala Edathavalams, which includes more

than 50 temples under the management of Travancore Devaswom

Board, where the pilgrims were provided with facilities like

Annadhanam, toilet and Viri. On account of various issues on

crowd management at Sabarimala and pilgrim facilities at

Sabarimala Edathavalams, this Court had to conduct special

sittings on holidays, after obtaining orders from the Honourable

the Chief Justice and issue necessary orders to ensure that the

pilgrims have a safe and comfortable pilgrimage and darshan

during the festival season. On a query made by this Court, the

learned Amicus Curiae for Special Commissioner, Sabarimala

2024/KER/11706

46

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

would submit that the change effected in the office of the

Devaswom Commissioner on 13.12.2023 was never informed to

the Special Commissioner. After taking charge, the 8

th

respondent

personally met the Special Commissioner once at Sabarimala. The

conduct of the 3

rd

respondent Travancore Devaswom Board in

effecting a change in the office of the Devaswom Commissioner,

during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season, when the number

of footfall in most of the days have crossed one lakh pilgrims, even

without intimating this Court about such a change, has to be

deprecated in the strongest words and we do so.

13. Section 13B of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious

Institutions Act, 1950, inserted by the Amendment Act 26 of 2018,

deals with the appointment of Devaswom Commissioner. Section

13B reads thus;

“13B. The Board shall appoint an officer not below the rank

of a Deputy Commissioner who is eligible to be promoted as

Devaswom Commissioner , and in the absence of such officer

an officer not below the rank of an Additional Secretary to

Government on deputation as Devaswom Commissioner.”

(underline supplied)

14. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of

sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act, the Board made the

Travancore Devaswom Servant’s Recruitment, Service and

Conduct Rules, 1952. Rule 3 defines Devaswom Servants, who are

2024/KER/11706

47

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

classified under Class (a) to (d). Class (c) deals with persons

recruited afresh by the Board in its administrative establishments.

Their recruitment and qualifications were governed by the

provisions under Rules 5 to 11. As per Rule 5, recruitment of Class

(c) Devaswom servants to the administrative establishments

under the Board shall be made in accordance with the rules passed

by the Devaswom Board in that behalf. The Board may prescribe

from time to time the qualifications required for the posts, if any

under them which are not covered by schedule 2, attached to the

above rules and notify the same when inviting applicants for such

posts. As per Rule 6, officers recruited for specific periods to posts

in the higher division may be exempted by the Board from the

operation of the rule regarding the passing of departmental test

examinations for purposes of appointment, increment, etc. As per

Rule 7, persons recruited for permanent appointment in the

administrative establishments under the Board shall pass suc h

other departmental tests as the Board may prescribe from time to

time for purposes of confirmation, promotion, increment, etc.

14.1. As per Rule 9, for purposes of recruitment and

promotion the staff of the Board Office, Law Office and the Offices

of the Devaswom Department under the Devaswom Commissioner

will be considered as one unit, the staff in the Devaswom Account

2024/KER/11706

48

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

Office as another unit and the staff of Maramat Department as still

another unit, provided that for vacancies in the Superintendent’s

grade in the Department under the Devaswom Commissioner the

claims of officers in the Devaswom Account Office will also be

considered according to the comparative rank of the officers under

the Devaswom Commissioner and the Devaswom Account Officer.

15. Service conditions of Devaswom employees in the

Travancore Devaswom Board were governed by the provisions

contained in the Rules Regarding Service Conditions of Devaswom

Employees, 1979, made in exercise of the powers conferred under

clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act. In the

preamble of that Rule, it was stated that in the matter of

disciplinary proceedings, the Board has adopted and followed the

Rules contained in Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1960 with effect from 27.10.1971. As per Rule 2,

the conditions of service of all Devaswom employees envisaged in

the rules shall be deemed to have been governed with effect from

01.04.1963 by the rules contained in the Kerala Service Rules

promulgated by the Kerala Government and the Government

orders issued from time to time by the Kerala Government from

01.11.1956, insofar as they have been ad opted by resolution

taken by the Board, and insofar as they are not repugnant to the

2024/KER/11706

49

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

context of the services under the Devaswom Board. As per Rule

4, the disciplinary proceedings taken against the Devaswom

employees envisaged under these Rules shall be deemed to have

been governed with effect from 27.10.1971 , by the rules

contained in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control &

Appeal) Rules, 1960 and shall continue to be governed by the

aforesaid Rules insofar as they are not repugnant to the context

of the services under the Board.

16. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section

(5) of Section 29 and clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 35

of the Act, the Board made Travancore Devaswom Board Low Paid

Employee’s Appointment as Clerk/Sub Group Officer Rules, 1990.

Rule 5 of the said Rules, which deals with qualifications, reads

thus;

“5. Qualification.- Minimum qualification for appointment as

Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade II shall be pass in

S.S.L.C with Sub Group Officer Test or D.O.T (New Scheme) or

M.T as the case may be.”

17. In supersession of the aforesaid Rules/Orders on the

subject, the Board vide notification dated 01.04.2022 (Ext.P12)

made the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers’ and Servants’

Service Rules, 2022. As per Rule 4(1)(a), the post of Devaswom

Commissioner falls under Category 1. Rule 5(1) of the Rules deals

2024/KER/11706

50

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

with the method of appointment to various categories in the

Travancore Devaswom Board Devaswom Department. The

method of appointment for the category ‘Devaswom

Commissioner’ in Rule 5(1)(a) reads thus;

Category Method of Appointment

(1) (2)

1 Devaswom

Commissioner

1. By promotion from among the

category of Deputy Devaswom

Commissioner specified in

category 4 under rule 4(1)(a).

2. In the absence of suitable

candidate for promotion so

specified above, an officer not

below the rank of an Additional

Secretary to Government from

the Administrative Secretariate

on Deputation basis.

17.1. As per Rule 6(1), which deals with qualifications, no

person shall be eligible for appointment to the categories under

Rule (4) specified in column I of the table by the method against

it in column 2 thereof unless he/she possesses the qualifications

specified in the corresponding entry in column 3. The qualifications

prescribed in Rule 6(1) for the post of Devaswom Commissioner,

Thiruvabharanam Commissioner and Secretary read thus;

Category Method of

Appointment

Qualifications

(1) (2) (3)

1 Devaswom

Commissioner

1. By

promotion

1. From among the

category of Deputy

Devaswom Commissioner

specified as in category 4

2024/KER/11706

51

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

2. Deputation

from

Government

service

under Rule 4(1)(a).

Should possess a

Bachelor’s Degree and a

Degree in Law with an

unblemished service

record in the services of

the Board to be appointed

from a select list based on

seniority and merit and

approved by the

Departmental Promotion

Committee. Vigilance

clearance from the State

Vigilance is necessary for

the appointment.

2. In the absence of

suitable hands in (1)

above, an officer not

below the rank of

Additional Secretary to

Government from the

Administrative

Secretariat on deputation

basis. Vigilance clearance

is necessary for the

appointment.

2 Thiruvabharanam

Commissioner

By promotion From the category 4

specified in rule 4 (1)(a)

who possesses a

Bachelors Degree with

good service record in the

services of the Board to

be appointed from a

select list prepared based

on seniority and merit

and approved by the

Departmental Promotion

Committee.

3 Secretary By promotion From the category 4

specified in rule 4 (1)(a)

who possesses a

Bachelor’s Degree with

good service record in the

services of the Board to

be appointed from a

select list prepared based

2024/KER/11706

52

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

on seniority and merit

and approved by the

Departmental Promotion

Committee.

17.2. A reading of the provisions under Rule 6(1)(a) of the

Travancore Devaswom Board Officers’ and Servants’ Service

Rules, 2022 would make it explicitly clear that in the case of

appointment by promotion to the category of Devaswom

Commissioner, from the category of Deputy Devaswom

Commissioner, the candidate should possess a Bachelor’s Degree

and a Degree in Law with unblemished service records in the

service of the Board. He has to be appointed from a select list

based on seniority and merit and approved by the Departmental

Promotion Committee . Vigilance clearance from the State

Vigilance is necessary for making such an appointment. The

provisions contained in Rule 6(1) would show that in case of

Thiruvabharanam Commissioner and Secretary, the requirement

is ‘good service record’ in the service of the Board, whereas, for

Devaswom Commissioner , the requirement is ‘unblemished

service record’ in the service of the Board.

17.3. Rule 14 of the Rules deals with probation. As per Rule

14, every person appointed to any of the category shall from the

date which he/she joins duty, be on probation; (i) if recruited

directly or appointed by transfer, for a total period of two years on

2024/KER/11706

53

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

duty within a continuous period of three years; (ii) if appointed by

promotion, for a total period of one year on duty within a

continuous period of two years; and (iii) if appointed by promotion

from a select list under these rules, for a total period of six months

on duty within a continuous period of one year.

17.4. Rule 18 of the Rules deals with promotion. As per Rule

18, promotion to the categories specified in categories 1 to 6 in

Rule 4(1)(a) and categories 1 to 10 and 12 in Rule 7 shall be made

from a select list approved by the Departmental Promotion

Committee constituted by the Recruitment Board , in accordance

with sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board

Rules, 2015 and in respect of other posts from an approved final

seniority list as specified under these rules.

18. The document marked as Ext.P13 is the minutes of the

9

th

respondent Departmental Promotion Committee for preparing

the select list to the cadre of Devaswom Commissioner by

promotion, which met on 24.08.2023. The said minutes reads

thus;

“തിരുവിതോാംകൂർ ദേവസ്വാം ദ ോർഡിലെ ലസ്െക്ഷൻ വിഭോഗത്തിൽലെട്ട

കമ്മീഷണർ ദകഡറിദെയ്ക്ക് സ്ഥോനകയറ്റാം നൽകുന്നതിന് ലസ്െക്ട് െിസ്റ്റ്

തയ്യോറോകുന്നതിനോയി ദകരള ദേവസ്വാം റിക്കൂട്ട് ലെൻ്്റ് ദ ോർഡ്

ആസ്ഥോനത്ത് 24.08.2023 (വയോഴോഴ്ച) 2.30 ന് കൂടിയ അഡ്ദഹോക് വകുെ്

തെ ലക്രോദെോഷൻ കമ്മിറ്റിയുലട െിനിറ്റ്്.

2024/KER/11706

54

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

വകുപ്പ് തല പ്രൊമ ൊഷൻ കമ്മിറ്റി പെയർ ൊൻ അഡ്വ.പക.ബി.

മ ൊഹൻദൊസിന്പെ അധ്യക്ഷതയിൽ കൂടിയ കമ്മിറ്റിയിൽ പ മ്പർ &

കൺവീനർ അഡ്വ.എസ്.എസ് ജീവൻ , പ മ്പർ ്രീ.റ്റി.ആർ.ജയരൊൽ

എന്നിവർ രപെടുത്തു.

കമ്മീഷണർ മകഡ്െിമലയ്ക്ക് സ്ഥൊനകയറ്റം നൽകുന്നതിനുള്ള പസലക്ട്

ലിസ്റ്റ് തയ്യൊെൊകുന്നതിനുള്ള ഫിൽഡ് ഓഫ് മെൊയ്ക് സിൽ ഒരൊൾ ൊ്തമ

ഉൾപപ്പട്ടിട്ടുള്ളൂ. പഡ്രയൂട്ടി മദവസവം കമ്മീഷണർ മകഡ്െിപല ്രീ.സി.എൻ

രൊ ന്പെ മകൊൺഫിഡ്ൻഷയൽ െിമപ്പൊർട്ടുകൾ രരിമരൊധ്ിച്ചതിൽ മദവസവം

കമ്മീഷണർ തസ്തികയിമലയ്ക്ക് പ്രൊമ ൊഷൻ നൽകുന്നതിന്

ആമയൊഗ്യതയിപലെന്ന് കമ്മിറ്റി വിലയിരുത്തി. ടിയൊൻ പഡ്രയൂട്ടി മദവസവം

കമ്മിഷണർ ആയി െു തലമയറ്റ 14.06.2023 തീയതി ുതൽ ഒരു

പകൊലെകൊലത്തിനുള്ളിൽ ആെു ൊസകൊലപത്ത പ്രൊമബഷൻ

രൂർത്തിയൊകണപ ന്ന സ്പരഷയൽ െൂൾസിപല വയവസ്ഥ വകുപ്പ്തലവൻ

എന്ന സ്ഥൊനമത്തയ്ക്കുള്ള പ്രൊമ ൊഷന് ബൊധ്ക ലെ . അതിനൊൽ മദവസവം

കമ്മീഷണർ മകഡ്െിമലയ്ക്ക് സ്ഥൊനകയറ്റം നൽകുന്നതിനുള്ള 2023 പല

പസലക്ട് ലിസ്റ്റ് ടിയൊപന ഉൾപപ്പടുത്തി തയ്യൊെൊകുന്നതിന് തീരു ൊനിച്ചു.

2023 വർഷാം തിരുവിതോാംകൂർ ദേവസ്വാം ദ ോർഡ് കമ്മീഷണർ

ദകഡറിദെയ്ക്ക് സ്ഥോനകയറ്റത്തിനുള്ള ലഡരയൂട്ടി ദേവസ്വാം കമ്മീഷണർ

ദകഡറിലെ ലസ്െക്ട് െിസ്റ്റ്.

ഒപ്പ് ഒപ്പ് ഒപ്പ്

അഡ്വ.പക.ബി.മ ൊഹൻദൊസ് അഡ്വ.എസ്.എസ് ജീവൻ ്രീ.റ്റി.ആർ.ജയരൊൽ

പെയർ ൊൻ പ മ്പർ & കൺവീനർ പ മ്പർ”

(underline supplied)

19. In Ext.P13, the 9

th

respondent Departmental Promotion

Committee found the 8

th

respondent eligible for being promoted

as Devaswom Commissioner on the ground that the provision

regarding satisfactory completion of probation for a period of six

്ക

നം

ഉമദയൊഗ്സ്ഥന്പെ മരര്

ജനന

തീയതി

വിര ികൽ

തീയതി

1 ്രീ.സി.എൻ.രൊ ൻ

16.01.1968

31.01.2024

2024/KER/11706

55

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

months of duty within a continuous period of one year, as provided

in clause (iii) of Rule 14 of Ext.P12 Rules, has no application since

promotion is to the cadre of the Head of the Department . The

Departmental Promotion Committee took s uch a stand, relying on

the provisions under Rule 28(a)(i) of the Kerala State &

Subordinate Service Rules (KS&SSR) , which is evident from

paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit dated 30.12.2023 filed by the

9

th

respondent, which is one sworn to by its Chairman.

20. Rule 28(a) of KS&SSR deals with promotion. As per

Rule 28(a)(i), except in the case of appointment to the posts of

Heads of Departments no member of a service or class of a service

shall be eligible for promotion from the category in which he was

appointed to the service unless he has satisfactorily completed his

probation in that category.

20.1. As per the first proviso to Rule 28(a)(i), a probationer

in a class, category or grade shall not be superseded for promotion

to a higher class, category or grade by his junior, if the vacancy

in the higher class, category or grade arises within the period

specified in the Special Rules for completion of probation in the

class, category or grade in which he is probationer and if he has

passed the test or tests prescribed for successful completion of

probation and is otherwise e ligible and suitable for such

2024/KER/11706

56

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

promotion; but his promotion shall be subject to the condition that

he satisfactorily completes the probation in the class, category or

grade from which he was promoted within the period prescribed

therefor, and for this purpose the period of service put in by him

in the higher class, category or grade shall be reckoned towards

probation in the class, category or grade from which he was

promoted and also in the class, category or grade to which he was

promoted.

20.2. As per the second proviso to Rule 28(a)(i), if a

probationer promoted in pursuance of the first proviso fails to

complete his probation in the class, category or grade from which

he was promoted within the period prescribed therefor, his

probation in the higher class, category or grade shall be

terminated and he shall be reverted to the class, category or grade

from which he was promoted, and any subsequent promotion of

such person to the higher class, category or grade shall not also

entitle such person to claim seniority in the higher class, category

or grade by reason only of his previous promotion in pursuance of

the preceding proviso and he shall commence probation afresh in

that class, category or grade from the date of such subsequent

promotion.

20.3. As per Rule 28(a)(ii), where the Special Rules for a

2024/KER/11706

57

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

service provide for appointment by promotion to any class or

category from a specified class or category of such service, no

member shall be eligible for such appointment unless he is a full

member or an approved probationer in the class or category so

specified. As per the proviso to Rule 28(a)(ii), if he is the holder

of a post in any service for which no probation has been

prescribed, he shall not be eligible for promotion unless he has put

in satisfactory service in that post for a period of one year on duty

within a continuous period of two years.

21. During the course of arguments, the specific stand

taken by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom

Board and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Devaswom

Recruitment Board, representing the 9

th

respondent Departmental

Promotion Committee, is that in the matter of promotion to the

post of Devaswom Commissioner, the provisions under Rule

28(a)(i) of the KS&SSR have application and as such, the

Departmental Promotion Committee rightly found the 8

th

respondent suitable and qualified for being promoted as

Devaswom Commissioner. After referring to the provisions under

Rule 18 of the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers’ and Servants’

Service Rules, which deals with promotion, the learned Standing

Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would contend that

2024/KER/11706

58

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

declaration of satisfactory completion of probation in the cadre of

Deputy Commissioner is not necessary for considering the 8

th

respondent for promotion to the post of Devaswom Commissioner.

22. The learned Senior Counsel for the 8

th

respondent

would contend that the provisions under KS&SSR have no

application in the matter of promotion to the post of Devaswom

Commissioner. However, as per Rule 18 of the Travancore

Devaswom Board Officers’ and Servants’ Service Rules , 2022

which deals with promotion, declaration of satisfactory completion

of probation in the cadre of Deputy Commissioner is not necessary

for considering the 8

th

respondent for promotion to the post of

Devaswom Commissioner.

23. On the above aspect, the submission made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provisions

under Rule 14(ii) of the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers’ and

Servants’ Service Rules, 2022, the 8

th

respondent who was

promoted as Deputy Devaswom Commissioner only on

14.06.2023, shall be on probation for a total period of one year on

duty within a continuous period of two years. The 8

th

respondent,

who was promoted as Deputy Devaswom Commissioner only on

14.06.2023, who is on probation for a total period of one year on

duty within a continuous period of two years, cannot be found

2024/KER/11706

59

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

eligible by the 9

th

respondent Departmental Promotion Committee

on 24.08.2023 to be included in the select list for promotion to the

cadre of Devaswom Commissioner. In view of the provisions under

Rule 28(a)(ii) of the KS&SSR, where the Special Rules for a service

provide for appointment by promotion to any class or category

from a specified class or category of such service, no member shall

be eligible for such appointment unless he is a full member or an

approved probationer in the class or category so specified.

24. On the applicability of the provisions of the KS&SSR,

we notice the law laid down by a learned Single Judge in Satheesh

Kumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2009 (2) KLT 828] ,

which was rendered in the context of the Rules framed by the

Travancore Devaswom Board for fixation of seniority and

promotion, as empowered under Travancore -Cochin Hindu

Religious Institutions Act, which was brought into force as per

Gazette Notification dated 25.12.1979. After referring to the law

laid down by the Apex Court in Nagpur Investment Trust v.

Vasantarao [(2002) 7 SCC 657] , the learned Single Judge held

that when there is no incorporation or adoption of the provisions

of KS&SSR either express ly or by specific reference in the

aforesaid Rules of 1979, the arguments advanced by the petitioner

that the principle in Rule 28(bb) of the KS&SSR cannot be adopted

2024/KER/11706

60

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

is well founded. Paragraphs 14 to 18 of that decision read thus;

‘14. The first question is whether, going by the scheme of

the rules provided in Ext.P3, the principles stated in Rule

28(bbb) could be applied. Going by Rule 9(3) of the rules,

promotions in a service, or class which depends upon

passing of any examination , whether general or

departmental, shall ordinarily be made with reference to the

condition existing at the time of occurrence of the vacancies

and not with reference to those at the time when the

question of promotion is taken up. Under Explanation to

Rule 28(bbb), the principles in the sub-rule shall apply for

the drawal of increments and for promotion not involving

change of duties against vacancies remaining unfilled for

want of test-qualified persons. As per sub-rule (b) of the

said provision, the day following the last day of the whole

examination or test in which the person has successfully

completed the examination or test by passing one or more

subjects, is the relevant criteria. Admittedly, such a

provision is not there in Ext.P3 rules. The provisions of

KS&SSR have not been incorporated or adopted in Ext.P3.

Even by reference the said principles have not been made

applicable.

15. Herein, one more thing has to be noticed: Rule 28(bbb)

was substituted as per G.O.(P)No.447/1984/GAD dated

10.12.1984, which was published in the Kerala Gazette No.9

dated 26.2.1985. Ext.P3 rules are of the year 1979. As

noted already, the Rules of KS&SSR are not incorporated by

reference in Ext.P3 rules. Rule 9 of Ext.P3 has not been

amended at all, even to adopt the principles engrafted in

Rule 28(bbb).

16. A similar question was considered under the Kerala

2024/KER/11706

61

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

Education Rules by a Division Bench of this court in

Balakrishnan K.M. v. Assistant Educational Officer,

Vadakara [2005 (4) KLT 64] . While considering the

question whether Rule 28(bbb) will apply to aided school

teachers, it was held that “Rule 28(bbb) in the KS&SSR had

been framed under the Public Service Act, 1961. It is

apparently not applicable to the aided school teachers. The

service conditions of aided school teachers are as contained

in Chapter XIVA KER, which is prescribed in terms of Section

12 of the Kerala Education Act. Therefore, Rule 28(bbb) as

such cannot be pressed into their service conditions, as it

does not form part of the Chapter XIVA KER”

17. Herein, the rules have been framed as provided under

the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act,

1950 under sub-section (2) of Section 35. The rules are

titled as “Rules Regarding Service Conditions of Devaswom

Employees.” In that view of the matter, as Rule 28(bbb) has

not been specifically incorporated in the rules also, there

cannot be any applicability of the above rule in the matter

of promotion. The provisions of KS&SSR are applicable only

to the State and Subordinate Services. The pri nciple of

legislation by incorporation by reference is an accepted

legislative device. Only if such incorporation is made

mention of in the relevant statutory rules, it could be

applied. The said position was explained by the Apex Court

in Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vasantrao and others

[(2002) 7 SCC 657] . In para.31 it was held thus:

“When an earlier Act or certain of its provisions

are incorporated by reference into a later Act,

the provisions so incorporated become part and

parcel of the later Act as if they had been bodily

2024/KER/11706

62

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

transposed into it. The incorporation of an

earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device

adopted for the sake of convenience in order to

avoid verbatim reproduction of the provisions of

the earlier Act into the later. But this must be

distinguished from a referential legislation

which merely contains a reference or citation of

the provisions of an earlier statute. In a case

where a statute is incorporated, by reference,

into a second statute, the repeal of the first

statute by a third does not affect the second.

The later Act along with the incorporated

provisions of the earlier Act constitutes an

independent legislation which is not modified or

repealed by a modification or repeal of the

earlier Act. However, where in a later Act there

is a mere reference to an earlier Act, the

modification, repeal or amendment of the

statute that is referred, will also have an effect

on the statute in which it is referred. It is equally

well settled that the question whether a former

statute is merely referred to or cited in a later

statute, or whether it is wholly or partially

incorporated therein, is a question of

construction.”

18. Admittedly, herein there is no incorporation or adoption

of the provisions of KS&SSR either expressly or by specific

reference in Ext.P3. Therefore, the argument raised by the

petitioners that the said principle cannot be adopted, is well

founded.’ (underline supplied)

25. The preparation of select lists for the appointment of

2024/KER/11706

63

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

candidates in various posts, except hereditary post s, coming

under various Devaswom Boards and Managing Committees are

governed by the provisions under Rule 3 of the Kerala Devaswom

Recruitment Board Rules, 2015, which is one framed in exercise

of the powers under Section 18 of the Kerala Devaswom

Recruitment Board Act, 2015. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 3, the

Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board shall have the power to

prepare select lists for the appointment of candidates in various

posts except hereditary p osts coming under the various

Devaswom Boards and Managing Committees. As per sub -rule (2)

of Rule 3, in all cases of direct recruitment, subject to the

provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Kerala Devaswom

Recruitment Board Ordinance, 2015 , rules of reservation and

rotation as provided in Rules 14 to 17 of Part II of KS&SSR mutatis

mutandis apply. As per the first proviso sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, the

posts reserved in the KS&SSR for the non-Hindu backward

communities, shall be divided among the Hindu communities as

given in that proviso. As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 3, the candidates

for appointment of the selection categories and grades of service

shall be chosen by the Departmental Promotion Committee

constituted by the Board, which shall consist of one member from

the Board as Chairman, a member of the Devaswom Board as

2024/KER/11706

64

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

member and convenor and a member nominated by the

Government.

26. After considering the submissions made at the Bar, with

reference to the statutory provisions referred to hereinbefore and

also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the

conclusion is irresistible that the provisions under Rule 28(a)(i) of

KS&SSR have no application in the case of promotion to the post

of Devaswom Commissioner in Travancore Devaswom Board .

27. Another issue that requires consideration is whether

the provisions under Rule 18 of the Travancore Devaswom Board

Officers’ and Servants’ Service Rules, 2022, will enable the 8

th

respondent, who is a probationer under Rule 14, in the post of the

Deputy Devaswom Commission , to be promoted as Devaswom

Commissioner. The submission made by the learned Standing

Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and also the Senior

Counsel for the 8

th

respondent is that, though Rule 14(ii) provides

that every person appointed by promotion to any of the categories

shall be on probation for a period of one year on duty within a

continuous period of two years, Rule 18 does not stipulate

satisfactory completion of probation in the lower category as a

condition for promotion to the categories in Rule 4(a)(a) of the

Service Rules. Therefore, satisfactory completion of probation in

2024/KER/11706

65

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

the post of Deputy Devaswom Commissioner is not necessary for

being considered for inclusion in the select list prepared by the

Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the cadre of

Devaswom Commissioner.

28. The concept of probation in the matter of appointment

in a particular service has been dealt with in detail by the Apex

Court in Ajith Singh v. State of Panjab [(1983) 2 SCC 217] .

Relying on the earlier decision in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v.

Union of India [AIR 1958 SC 36] , the Apex Court held that the

concept of probation is to guard against the errors of human

judgment in selecting suitable personnel for service. The period of

probation gave a sort of locus poenitentiae to the employer to

observe the work, ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of

the servant. The law laid down in Ajith Singh [(1983) 2 SCC

217] was reiterated by a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in

Rajashtan High Court v. Vedpriya and another [AIR 2020

SC 2811]. Paragraphs 15 to 17 of that decision read thus;

“15. Similarly, in Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of

Jharkhand [(2011) 4 SCC 447] it was opined: (SCC p.

449, para 9)

“9. … A person is placed on probation so as to enable

the employer to adjudge his suitability for

continuation in the service and also for confirmation

in service. There are various criteria for adjudging

2024/KER/11706

66

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

suitability of a person to hold the post on permanent

basis and by way of confirmation. At that stage and

during the period of probation the action and

activities of the probationer (appellant) are generally

under scrutiny and on the basis of his overall

performance a decision is generally taken as to

whether his services should be continued and that

he should be confirmed, or he should be released

from service.”

16. It is thus clear that the entire objective of probation is

to provide the employer an opportunity to evaluate the

probationer's performance and test his suitability for a

particular post. Such an exercise is a necessary part of the

process of recruitment, and must not be treated lightly.

Written tests and interviews are only attempts to predict a

candidate's possibility of success at a particular job. The true

test of suitability is actual performance of duties which can

only be applied after the candidate joins and starts working.

17. Such an exercise undoubtedly is subjective, therefore,

the 1

st

respondent’s contention that confirmation of

probationers must be based only on objective material is

far-fetched. Although quantitative parameters are

ostensibly fair, but they by themselves are imperfect

indicators of future performance. Qualitative assessment

and a holistic analysis of non-quantifiable factors are indeed

necessary. Merely because the 1

st

respondent’s ACRs were

consistently marked “Good”, it cannot be a ground to

bestow him with a right to continue in service.”

29. The provisions contained in Rule 28(a)(i) of the

KS&SSR is a specific provision, which provides for an exception in

the case of promotion to the cadre of Head of the Department. In

2024/KER/11706

67

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

view of the provisions under Section 28(a)(i), satisfactory

completion of probation in the lower cadre is not a legal

requirement for promotion to the cadre of the Head of the

Department. In the absence of any specific provision to that effect

in the Travancore Devaswom Board Officers’ and Servants’ Service

Rules, 2022 and in the absence of incorporation or adoption of the

provisions under Rule 28(a) of the KS&SSR by the Travancore

Devaswom Board in the aforesaid Service Rules, declaration of

probation in the post of Deputy Devaswom Commissioner is an

essential requirement for the 8

th

respondent being considered for

inclusion in the select list prepared by the 9

th

respondent

Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the cadre of

Devaswom Commissioner.

30. As already noticed hereinbefore, the 9

th

respondent

Departmental Promotion Committee found the 8

th

respondent

eligible for being promoted as Devaswom Commissioner on the

ground that the provision regarding satisfactory completion of

probation for a period of six months of duty within a continuous

period of one year, as provided in clause (iii) of Rule 14 of the

Travancore Devaswom Board Officers’ and Servants’ Service

Rules, 2022, has no application since promotion is to the cadre of

the Head of the Department, relying on the provisions under Rule

2024/KER/11706

68

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

28(a)(i) of KS&SSR. When there is no incorporation or adoption of

the provisions of KS&SSR, either expressly or by specific reference

in the said Service Rules, the principles in 28(a)(i) of KS&SSR have

no application in the case of promotion to the cadre of Devaswom

Commissioner. In that view of the matter, the conclusion is

irresistible that the 8

th

respondent is a person who is ineligible for

being considered for inclusion in the select list prepared by the 9

th

respondent Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to

the cadre of Devaswom Commissioner. It is based on such

inclusion in the select list that the 8

th

respondent was promoted

as Devaswom Commissioner, vide Ext.P23 order dated 12.12.2023

of the 3

rd

respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. The

appointment of the 8

th

respondent as Devaswom Commissioner,

vide Ext.P23 order dated 12.12.2023 of the 3

rd

respondent

Travancore Devaswom Board is contrary to the statutory

provisions and the 8

th

respondent has no authority to hold the post

of Devaswom Commissioner of Travanc ore Devaswom Board.

31. As already noticed hereinbefore, the Travancore

Devaswom Board Officers’ and Servants’ Service Rules, 2022 ,

prescribes unblemished service record in the services of the Board

for a person to be promoted as Devaswom Commissioner. At the

same time, for the post of Secretary and Thiruvabaranam

2024/KER/11706

69

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

Commissioner, the requirement is good service records in the

services of the Board. ‘Unblemished’ means ‘not damaged or

marked in any way’. See: the Oxford Dictionary of English 8

th

Edition.

32. Regarding the purchase of land and building for the

Thiruvithamcore Devaswom Employees Confederation,

W.P.(C)No.40546 of 2023 is pending consideration before this

Court. In the affidavit filed in DBP No.101 of 2023 and also that

filed in W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023, the 8

th

respondent has offered

certain explanations on those aspects. The stand taken in the

affidavit is that a total sum of Rs.90,00,000 was collected for that

purpose, for which the Confederation is maintaining proper

accounts, which are audited by a Chartered Accountant. The 8

th

respondent was the President of the Confederation at the relevant

time. The submission made on behalf of the 8

th

respondent is that

the Confederation is prepared to produce those accounts before

this Court, in the pending proceedings, i.e., W.P.(C)No.26259 of

2023 and DBP No.101 of 2023, in a sealed cover. On a specific

query made by this Court, the learned Senior Counsel for the 8

th

respondent submitted that those accounts are yet to be submitted

before the Board. If that be so, the decision taken by the Board,

which is under challenge in W.P.(C)No.40546 of 2023, is one taken

2024/KER/11706

70

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

without verification of such accounts. Since that issue is pending

consideration in that writ petition, we do not propose to consider

those aspects in these proceedings.

33. Another issue raised in the writ petition is in respect of

the liability incurred by the 8

th

respondent, to the tune of

Rs.10,56,660/-, while he was working as an Administrative Officer

of Thiruvallam Devaswom. In the counter affidavit filed by the 8

th

respondent in W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023, it is stated that the

liability as per draft audit note has now been reduced to

Rs.54,719.54/-. During the course of arguments, the learned

counsel for the petitioner argued that the procedure adopted by

the Board while refixing the liability of the 8

th

respondent, at such

a reduced sum, is contrary to the prescribed procedure to be

followed by the Board. The learned counsel would place reliance

on Ext.P8 communication dated 10.05.2023 issued by the

Secretary of the Board to the Finance and Accounts Officer. On the

other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the 8

th

respondent

would contend that the liability initially shown in the draft audit

note, which was not prepared as per the accepted procedure, was

rectified by an exercise that has been undertaken by the Board,

which culminated in an order passed by the Devaswom

Commissioner, as evidenced by Ext.R8(e) proceedings. We do not

2024/KER/11706

71

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

propose to consider the rival contentions on this aspect, in these

proceedings, in view of the pendency of W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023

and also the order of stay granted by a learned Single Judge in

W.P.(C)No.19412 of 2022 filed by respondents 8 to 11 in

W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023. We also notice the statutory provisions,

which govern the audit of accounts of the Travancore Devaswom

Board, which is done by the State Audit Department. The Deputy

Director, State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board

Audit is a party to W.P.(C)No.26259 of 2023 and all those aspects

will have to be decided in that writ petition. Therefore, the legal

and factual contentions raised by both sides are left open to be

raised in those proceedings. The files handed over by the learned

Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board relating to

Ext.R8(e) proceedings are returned.

34. As already held hereinbefore, in view of the law laid

down in Satheeshkumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board

[2009 (2) KLT 828] , which was one rendered after taking note

of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Nagpur Investment

Trust v. Vasantarao [(2002) 7 SCC 657] , when there is no

incorporation or adoption of the provisions of KS&SSR either

expressly or by specific reference in the Travancore Devaswom

Board Officers’ and Servants’ Service Rules, 2022, the principle in

2024/KER/11706

72

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

Rule 28(a)(i) of KS&SSR has no application in the preparation of

select list by the 9

th

respondent Departmental Promotion

Committee for promotion to the post of Devaswom Commissioner .

In the absence of incorporation or adoption of the provisions of

Rule 28(a) of KS&SSR by the Travancore Devaswom Board in the

Service Rules of 2022, declaration of probation in the post of

Deputy Devaswom Commissioner is an essential requirement for

the 8

th

respondent being considered for inclusion in the select list

prepared by the 9

th

respondent Departmental Promotion

Committee for promotion to the cadre of Devaswom

Commissioner. Therefore, the appointment of the 8

th

respondent

as Devaswom Commissioner, vide Ext.P23 order dated 12.12.2023

of the 3

rd

respondent Travancore Devaswom Board is contrary to

the statutory provisions and the 8

th

respondent has no authority

to hold the post of Devaswom Commissioner of Travancore

Devaswom Board.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing a writ

of quo warranto declaring that the appointment of the 8

th

respondent as Devaswom Commissioner in the 3

rd

respondent

Travancore Devaswom Board is contrary to the statutory

provisions and that he has no authority to hold the post of

Devaswom Commissioner. As a consequence, Ext.P23 order dated

2024/KER/11706

73

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

12.12.2023 is set aside and it is declared that the 8

th

respondent

will not be entitled to get any service benefits including monetary

benefits on account of the promotion granted on 12.12.2023 to

the post of Devaswom Commissioner.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN , JUDGE

Sd/-

G. GIRISH, JUDGE

Vgd/AV/bkn/min

2024/KER/11706

74

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43139/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER VIDE ROC.NO.5600/23/EST -

1(I) DATED 13.06.2023 ISSUED BY TRAVANCORE

DEVASWOM BOARD

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE

AUDIT NOTE OF THIRUVALLAM DEVASWOM STATING

OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

SHOWING THE LIABILITIES OF

RS.10,56,650.54/- AGAINST SAID C.N.RAMAN

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE POLICE SUB

INSPECTOR, VIGILANCE WING, TRAVANCORE

DEVASWOM BOARD (PTN NO.150/19/TDB/VIG)

DATED 10.05.2020

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE

HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P.(C) NO.31159 OF

2022 DATED 1.8.2023

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR VIDE ROC.

NO.966/04/OAD DATED 02.03.2004 ISSUED BY

THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRAVANCORE

DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 15.02.2021

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF RE -

FIXED LIABILITY STATEMENT AGAINST ONE RAMAN

BY THE FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC.NO.11/22/EST -I DATED

10.05.2023 ISSUED BY SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE

DEVASWOM BOARD

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE

SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD VIDE

ROC.NO.296/14/HCA/EST -I DATED 16.01.2015

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE

AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN W.P.(C) NO.26259 OF

2023 DATED 27.9.2023

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY,

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD VIDE ROC

NO.245/09/EST-1/DPC DATED 25.08.2023

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF RULE

14 OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICERS'

AND SERVANTS' SERVICE RULES.2022

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DEPARTMENT

PROMOTION COMMITTEE HELD ON 24.08.2023

2024/KER/11706

75

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

WHICH HAS BEEN OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO

INFORMATION ACT

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.03.2019

IN R.P. NO.243 OF 2019 IN DBP. NO. 11 OF

2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 08.04.2019 IN

SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 8254 -

8255/2019

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 09.12.2019 IN

SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 8254 -

8255/2019

Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02.03.2021 IN

SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 8254 -

8255/2019 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 254326 OF 2023 IN

SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 8254 -

8255/2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIA (WITHOUT ANNEXURES)

Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 246877 OF 2023

DATED 10.11.2023 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL

(C) NO(S). 8254-8255/2019 BEFORE THE

HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FILED BY THE

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD (WITHOUT

ANNEXURES)

Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.253764 OF 2023

DATED 05.12.2023 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL

(C) NO(S). 8254-8255/2019 BEFORE THE

HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (WITHOUT

ANNEXURES)

Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.12.2023 IN

SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 8254 -

8255/2019 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF ORDER VIDE ROC. NO.

01/2018/EST-1(II) DATED 12.12.2023 OF THE

SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ROC.NO.01/2018/EST -1(I)

DATED 12.12.2023. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

VIDE ROC.NO.01/2018/EST -1(I) DATED

12.12.2023 OF THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE

DEVASWOM BOARD

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

2024/KER/11706

76

W.P.(C)No.43139 of 2023

EXHIBIT R8(a) True copy of minutes of the meeting of the

Departmental Promotion Committee dated

7.6.2023.

EXHIBIT R8(b) True copy of explanation dated 10.10.2022

submitted by the 8th Respondent before the

Finance and Accounts Officer, Travancore

Devaswom Board

EXHIBIT R8(c) True copy of order No. ROC

No.10416/12/Suit/NS dated 4.1.2023 issued

by Travancore Devaswom Board.

EXHIBIT R8(d) True copy of Order No. ROC No. 11/22/Est -I

dated 03.04.2023 issued by Travancore

Devaswom Board.

EXHIBIT R8(e) True copy of order No. ROC.14291/22/OAD

dated 11.7.2023 issued by Devaswom

Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board

2024/KER/11706