LAWS(KER)-2012-8-357

ANEESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On August 21, 2012
ANEESH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the appointment of the third respondent as the Administrator under Section 14 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, for short, the "Act". The specific ground of challenge is that though only an officer of Government not below the rank of Deputy Collector could be appointed as the Administrator, third respondent who is not an officer of Government has been appointed as the Administrator. The question whether he is one below the rank of Deputy Collector would be relevant only if he is an officer of Government, it is contended and argued. The defence set up by the Government and the third respondent and supported by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee is that the third respondent was appointed by the Devaswom from among the panel forwarded by the Government and he, who was working as Deputy Registrar (Administration) of Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi which is one of the institutions under the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, was drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs. 16650-23200 which is above the scale of pay of a Deputy Collector and the salary and other emoluments to officers of the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment, including Kerala Forest Research Institute are disbursed from the Consolidated Fund of the State of Kerala. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that the third respondent is eligible to be held as one who was working as an officer of Government not below the rank of Deputy Collector. It is further pleaded and argued that though the petitioner has described himself as a devotee, interested in the affairs of the Guruvayoor Temple, the writ petition is essentially in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation and such an action is not maintainable in realm of service laws.

(2.) Though the Act does not, in terms, say that "Government" means the Government of Kerala, we cannot but take it to be so, having regard to the context and setting of the Act and the manner in which the secular control is sought to be provided over the affairs of the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor through the mechanism of the legislation in hand.

(3.) Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Act reads as follows: