Nived Krishnan E.M (Minor), Represented By His Father And Guardian E.Muraleedharan, vs Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee

Viju Abraham, J

WP(C) No.2580 of 2023 is filed challenging Ext.P16 order, whereby the request of the petitioner for selection as 'Krishnattam Vesham trainee in Guruvayur Devaswom was rejected. Pursuant to an interim order dated 14.2.2023 in WP(C) No.2580 of 2023, the issue was re-considered by the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and the claim was again rejected as per Ext.P23 order which resulted in the filing of WP(C)No.14985 of 2023. Therefore, W.P(C)NO.14985 of 2023 is taken as a leading case and the facts stated therein is referred to in this judgment.

The petitioner is a minor who has approached this Court through his father and natural guardian. The 1st respondent Managing Committee of the Guruvayur Devaswom issued Ext.P1 notification dated 4.5.2022 inviting applications from eligible persons to be appointed as trainees in the 'Krishnattam Vesham' wing in the 3rd respondent Kalanilayam. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application dated 13.5.2022 and along with Ext.P2, Ext.P3 request letter dated 13.5.2022, of the father of the petitioner was also enclosed. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 carried out a selection process and after evaluation of the merits of the applicants in the interview conducted, Ext.P4 rank list and Ext.P5 waiting list was prepared. The 1st respondent, managing committee of the Devaswom as per Ext.P6 resolution approved Exts.P4 and P5 lists. In Ext.P4 rank list 4 persons were included and in Ext.P5 waiting list, petitioner is rank No.1. Subsequent to the selection process all the persons included in Ext.P4 rank list, 4 in number, were appointed vide order dated 4.7.2022 and they have joined as trainees. Within, 15 days of such joining the 1st rank holder in Ext.P4, namely Adwaith V.K, submitted Ext.P7 request letter on 14.7.2022 through his parent before the 4th respondent requesting to relieve him from the post of trainee and further intimating that he is not intending to continue in the 3rd respondent Kalanilayam. Ext.P7 request was accepted by the 4th respondent as well as the 2nd respondent. In view of the subsequent development, there arose a vacancy and since Ext.P5 list is in force and the petitioner being rank No.1 in Ext.P5, is legally entitled to be appointed as trainee. But to the utter dismay of the petitioner, no steps were taken in this regard by the 2nd respondent. When the relevant files were placed before the 2nd respondent who was duty bound to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner, had instead, directed that the matter may be submitted before the 1st respondent Managing Committee of the Devaswom. Though the said order is dated 18.7.2022, till 31.10.2022 the same was not taken up for consideration by the 1st respondent and therefore petitioner's father submitted Ext.P9 request dated 31.10.2022 seeking requesting to appoint the petitioner in the vacancy of Adwaith V.K, who was relieved from the post of 'Krishnattam Vesham' trainee. As the request of the petitioner was not even placed in the next meeting of the 1st respondent scheduled to be held on 4.11.2022, petitioner approached this Court filing WP(C)No.35319 of 2022 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner. This Court as per Ext.P10 judgment disposed of the writ petition issuing a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's request for appointment and take appropriate decision in the matter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy the judgment. Thereafter, the 1st respondent as per Ext.P11 resolution dated 2.12.2022 decided to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner and his father appeared before the 1st respondent on 15.12.2022 and submitted Ext.P12 written request reiterating that the petitioner is legally entitled to be appointed as a trainee in the 'Krishnattam Vesham' wing. Thereafter, the 1st respondent resolved as per Ext.P13 to call for a report from the 5th respondent and to consider the case of the petitioner in the next meeting to be held on 22.12.2022. The 5th respondent submitted Ext.P14 report wherein he opined that continuous training of 41 days is to be undergone by the petitioner so as to equip him to be at par with the other trainee artists and further suggested that it will be proper to give admission to the petitioner during the training period. But on the directions issued by the 1st respondent, yet another report, Ext.P15, was submitted by the 5th respondent on the very same day of issuance of Ext.P14 recommendation, intimating that a new student cannot be admitted now. The 1st respondent on the basis of Ext.P15 report resolved as per Ext.P16 not to give appointment to the petitioner in the post of trainee in 'Krishnattam Vesham'. Neither Ext.P16 nor any consequential order was communicated to the petitioner, and thereupon, petitioner again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.2580 of 2023, challenging Ext.P16. Immediately after the filing of the writ petition petitioner was served with Ext.P17 consequential order based on the decision contained in Ext.P16 resolution.

Petitioner submits that the decisions contained in Exts.P15 and P17 are arbitrary and unjust in as much as, as per Ext.P19 in similar circumstances the 2nd respondent have granted appointment to the next eligible candidate in the rank list, much later after the commencement of the training session. Since Ext.P17 has been issued after the filing of WP(C) No.2580 of 2023, the same was withdrawn, and challenging Exts.P16 and P17, WP(C) No.2580 of 2023 was filed.

In WP(C) No.2580 of 2023 the respondents have filed Ext.P20 counter affidavit reiterating their stand taken in Exts.P16 and P17. Petitioner submits that the alleged delay by the 5th respondent in not granting admission to the petitioner occasioned solely due to the laches on the part of the 2nd respondent in issuing appointment orders especially when Exts.P4 and P5 lists were approved by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P6. Thereupon, this Court in WP(C) No.2580 of 2023 issued Ext.P21 interim order dated 14.2.2023 directing the Standing Counsel for the Devaswom to find out as to whether the petitioner's child could be included as 'Krishnattam Vesham' trainee. Pursuant to Ext.P21 interim order the 1st respondent resolved to obtain a further report from the 5th respondent as to whether the petitioner could be accommodated during the next training period. By Ext.P22 report, the 5th respondent opined that the petitioner could be accommodated during the next training period commencing from July, 2023. The petitioner contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not having any intention to appoint the petitioner and purposefully delayed the appointment so that a fresh notification could be issued so as to appoint persons of their choice. In spite of Ext.P22 report given by the 5th respondent the claim of the petitioner was again rejected by the 1st respondent vide Ext.P23 resolution dated 30.3.2023. Petitioner submits that issuance of Ext.P23 without assigning any reason and without considering Ext.P22 report of the 5th respondent is absolutely arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory. It is further submitted that the delay now projected to deny admission to the petitioner to the post of trainee in the 'Krishnattam Vesham' is solely attributable to the respondents, in as much as they themselves delayed the process of appointment of the petitioner. The respondents cannot legally deny the appointment of the petitioner especially when Exts.P4 and P5 rank list are valid and in force at the time of arising of the vacancy, since the list is not limited for a particular period nor another rank list has superseded Exts.P4 and P5 lists.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. It is contended that as Ext.P14 report was not in terms of issue referred to the 5th respondent as per Ext.P13 decision of the Managing Committee of the Devaswom, a further report was called for and thereafter Ext.P15 report was submitted and on the basis of the same, the managing committee has decided not to give admission to the petitioner at this stage endorsing the view taken by the 5th respondent and the same has been communicated to the petitioner as per Ext.P17 order. The veracity of Exts.P18 and P19 cannot be ascertained now since the same was issued over 30 years back. No admission could be granted to the petitioner since especially 41 days continuous training period is already over. Ext.P8 office note does not confer any right of the petitioner since it is only an opinion of the office concerned, who noted the same in the file and what matters is the final decision taken by the 1st respondent committee. Based on the same it was contended that Ext.P23 order is perfectly illegal and valid and the above writ petition is only to be dismissed.

I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Exts.P4 and P5 rank list was approved by the 1st respondent on 25.6.2022. As per Ext.P7 letter dated 14.7.2022, one Adwaith who is rank No.1 in Ext.P4 list intimated his inability to continue with the training and requested to relieve him. A perusal of Ext.P7 would show that he went for the training only for a period of 3 days. Going by Exts.P4 and P5 rank list, admittedly petitioner is a next eligible candidate for getting admission as 'Krishnattam' trainee in as much as he is rank No.1 in Ext.P5 waiting list. A perusal of Ext.P8 would show that it is specifically noted on 14.7.2022 itself that the petitioner could be considered for admission in the vacancy of Adwaith V.K. As no appointment was made based on the recommendation in Ext.P8, father of the petitioner has approached the authority concerned by Ext.P9 on 31.10.2022 requesting for grant of admission to the petitioner. Even though in Ext.P8 decision was taken on 20.7.2022 to place the the matter before the 1st respondent, the same was never placed before the 1st respondent for consideration which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court filing WP(C)35319 of 2022 and only on the basis of the direction in Ext.P10 judgment that the matter was placed before the Managing Committee on 2.12.2022. The Managing Committee had called for a report from the 5th respondent and in Ext.P14 report it was recommended that the petitioner could be appointed during the training period. But on the very same day another report was called for and the said report produced as Ext.P15, it was recommended that no new candidate could be given admission at this point of time and consequently, as per Ext.P16 decision dated 22.12.2022 the 1st respondent committee decided not to grant admission to the petitioner. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court as per Ext.P21 order the 1st respondent obtained a further report from the 5th respondent and Ext.P22 report was submitted by the 5th respondent wherein he has opined that the petitioner could be accommodated during the next training period commencing from July,2023. In spite of the specific opinion given by the 5th respondent that the petitioner could be accommodated during the next training period commencing from July,2023 the claim of the petitioner was again rejected by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P27 without assigning any reason especially as to why the opinion of the 5th respondent in Ext.P22 cannot be accepted. The delay which is sought to be a reason for not granting admission to the petitioner can never be attributed on the petitioner. The records produced in the writ petition would reveal that the delay occurred on the part of the official respondents in taking a decision in the matter regarding the admission to the petitioner as 'Krishnattam' trainee. A Perusal Ext.P7 would reveal that Adwaith V K, who was given admission submitted a request to relieve him after he attended the course for 3 days. A perusal of Ext.P8 would reveal that on 14.7.2022 it was opined that the petitioner could be accommodated in the said vacancy. Even though such an opinion is seen offered in the file note as early as on 4.7.2022 the matter was placed before the 1st respondent Managing Committee for the first time only on 02.12.2022 and later Ext.P16 resolution was passed on 22.12.22 deciding not to grant admission to the petitioner to the post of trainee in 'Krishnattam Vesham' and Ext.P17 consequential order was passed only on 12.1.2023. It is also pertinent to note that the claim of the petitioner was even considered by the 1st respondent only after intervention by this Court as per Ext.P10 judgment wherein a direction was issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's request for appointment. Therefore, on the basis of the above factual situation, it is without any dispute that the delay happened solely due to the laches on the part of the official respondents in taking a decision in the matter within a reasonable time.

Next aspect to be considered is whether the petitioner could be accommodated a 'Krishnattam' trainee at this point of time. This Court as per Ext.P21 order dated 14.2.2023 directed the official respondents to find out whether the petitioner could be accommodated in the vacancy which arose in the 'Krishsnattam Vesham' trainee and pursuant to the said order a further report was called for from the 5th respondent who in turn submitted Ext.P22 report recommending that the petitioner could be accommodated during the next training period commencing from July,2023. In spite of the said specific recommendation made by the 5th respondent, who is the competent person to opine whether the petitioner could be permitted to join for the training or not, the 1st respondent by Ext.P23 decided not to make any appointment from the rank list in existence. Absolutely no reasons have been stated in Ext.P13 for taking such a decision, especially when it is specifically recommended in Ext.P22 that the petitioner could be accommodated during the training period commencing from July, 2023 onwards. Petitioner being the 1st rank holder in the waiting list, is legally entitled for admission as a trainee in the 'Krishnattam Vesham' wing in the 3rd respondent Kalanilayam in the vacancy with occurred due to relieving of Adwaith V.K. No valid reasons have been stated by the 1st respondent for not admitting the petitioner as trainee in the 'Krishnattam Vesham' in the 3rd respondent Kalanilayam. In the light of the discussion as above, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner as per Exts.P16, P17 & P23 order is wrong and the same is liable to be interfered with. Therefore, Exts.P16, P17 and P23 orders are set aside with a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to issue orders admitting the petitioner as trainee in 'Krishnattam Vesham' wing in the 3rd respondent Kalanilayam in the vacancy that arose on the relieving on Adwaith V.K, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

In view of the orders passed in WP(C) No.14985 of 2023, no further orders are required in WP(C) No.2580 of 2023 and the same is accordingly, closed.