IMPORTANT POINTS
The Executive Officer appointed to carry out the decisions of the Board of Trustees cannot, in the matter of appointment of an employee, take a decision which is directly opposed to the stand of the Trustee or Board of Trustees-Ext.P2 order issued by the Executive Officer directing the petitioner not to report for duty without reference to the Trustee is completely illegal and unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 as well as Sri.Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon appearing for the 4th respondent.

2. The petitioner who claims to be working as Day Watchman in the Mulayankavu Bhagavathi Temple, Palakkad District, is before this Court challenging Exts.P2 order issued by the Executive Officer of the Temple requiring the petitioner not to work in the temple. It is submitted that the petitioner had been initially appointed as Clerk in the temple by the Hereditary Trustee who was managing the affairs of the temple. It is stated that the temple was subsequently taken over by the erstwhile HR & CE Department of the Government of Kerala. It is stated that while so, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner by the Executive Officer. He was placed under suspension on 7.7.2012. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted and on the basis of the report filed by the Enquiry Officer, the then Executive Officer had passed Ext.P1 order. By Ext.P1, the finding of guilt entered by the Enquiry Officer was confirmed. However, as a measure of compassion, an order was passed reverting the petitioner from the post of Vazhipad Clerk to the post of Day Watchman in the scale of pay 4400-110-5930. The said order was subject to ratification by the Board.

3. It is stated that at the relevant time in the year 2012, there was no Trustee Board in place and the Executive Officer had passed the order assuming the role of appointing authority and disciplinary authority as well. The petitioner, thereafter had continued as Day Watchman. It is stated that the present incumbent in the post of Executive Officer had assumed charge on 09.04.2019. On 20.05.2019, Ext.P2 proceedings were issued stating that there was a letter of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board dated 4.11.2015 and that as such, the petitioner could not be permitted to carry out the duties as an employee of the Devaswom. It is stated that on 22.05.2019 steps were taken by the Executive Officer to assign the duty carried out by the petitioner to a temporary Store Watchman engaged in the temple.

4. When the writ petition came up for admission, notice had been issued to respondents 3 and 4 by special messenger. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board was required to produce a copy of the order passed by the Commissioner on 4.11.2015 and to submit whether the copy of the same was served on the petitioner. The case was considered again on 06.06.2019. Respondents 3 and 4 were represented by counsel. The learned counsel appearing for the rd respondent submitted that the petitioner is continuing as Watchman in the temple. Status quo was therefore directed to be maintained.

5. A counter affidavit has been now placed on record by the 4th respondent. It is stated that on verification of the official records, the 4th respondent came to know that the appointment of the petitioner as Day Watchman did not have the approval of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, which is mandatory. It is stated that after Ext.P1 order had been rendered by the Executive officer, the 2nd respondent Commissioner had refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Day Watchman and this was communicated to the then Executive Officer. Ext.R4(a) is produced and stated to be the order passed by the Commissioner on 04.11.2015. It is further stated that the entire records relating to the termination and reinstatement of the petitioner were unavailable in the temple and that the erstwhile Executive Officer as well as the Trustee Board are taking steps to support the petitioner and willful misrepresentations are made before this Court to the effect that the petitioner had been continuing on 06.06.2019. It is stated that it was only on 25.05.2019, that the Trust