Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, 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, a Mel Santhi working in the 5th respondent temple, filed the present writ petition apprehending that he would be subjected to transfer in a very near future as has been the case concerning the other employees working in the respondent Board. To dilate on the issue, it can be stated that on 23.09.2014 and on 08.10.2014, there were instances of theft taking place in the temple, in connection of which a minor boy of 6 years old was also arrested. On 10.10.2014, the 4th respondent is said to have transferred in mass all the employees, save the petitioner, from the temple. Apprehending that he too would be transferred, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation to the 4th respondent. Complaining of its non disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
3. When the learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions in tune with the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioners. To begin with, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that no writ can be maintained on a mere apprehension, inasmuch as so far no order of transfer has been passed against the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel, in the alternative, has also submitted that if at all the petitioner is subjected to any transfer, the authorities would ensue that the said transfer is in accordance with law, but not otherwise.
4. Be that as it may, this Court does not propose to adjudicate the issue on merits. It suffices if the writ petition is disposed of with a suitable direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P1.
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 respondents, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, by affording an opportunity of being heard in person to the petitioner. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv