Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Devaswom, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who was working as Junior Clerk in Manapully Devaswom Temple, was removed from service by the second respondent on 09.08.2000. Assailing the removal, when the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No. 9314/2014, this Court, through Exhibit P1 judgment dated 11.12.2013, dismissed the writ petition. The learned Division Bench, while dismissing the writ appeal, inter alia, observed that by the time the petitioner was removed from service, the second respondent was not an entity of the State.
WPC 32720/14 2
3. At a later point of time, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P2 representation dated 27.01.2014 before the first respondent to consider her case sympathetically and reinstate her. The representation was made to the first respondent owing to the fact that after removal of the petitioner from service, the temple was taken over by the Malabar Devaswom - the first respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice Exhibit P3 judgment involving another employee of the second respondent. According to him, the said person, at whose instance Exhibit P3 judgment was passed, is similarly placed as the petitioner.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Devaswom has submitted that the petitioner was removed from service more than a decade ago and concerning a cause which arose under the private management, the petitioner cannot canvass before the Government, which has nothing to do with the issue of petitioner's removal. The WPC 32720/14 3 learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that Exhibit P3 has nothing to do with the petitioner and it was issued under a different factual matrix.
Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Devaswom, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P2 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv