IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1945 W.P.(C) NO. 5421 OF 2013 PETITIONER:

PARVATHY DEVI K.V.

AGED 28 YEARS, D/O. VENUGOPALA KURUP, KIZHAKKEDATH, CHERANELLORE P.O., ERNAKULAM-682034.

BY ADV SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR RESPONDENTS:

1 THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR-680001.

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER THRIPUNITHURA GROUP, SREE POORNATHRAYEESA TEMPLE, THRIPUNITHURA-682301.

3 DEVASWOM OFFICER KEEZHEDAM CHERANELLORE BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, CHERANELLORE, ERNAKULAM-682034.

4 NALINKUMAR M.G.

MYALPURAYIDOM, PALACHUVADU ROAD, SNRAA 44, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030.

BY ADVS.

R1 TO R3 SRI.K.P.SUDHEER,SC,CDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 30.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioner claims that he holds Karaima right of Adichuthali and Pathramtheppu (cleaning and washing of the vessels) in Keezhedam Cheranelloor Bhagavathy Temple, which is under the management and administration of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The petitioner alleges that disowning the said right, the respondents have invited applications for appointment to the post of Adichuthali and Pathramtheppu in the said Temple. The respondents have no right or authority to deny the petitioner’s Karaima right and therefore she filed this Writ Petition invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs,-

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction declaring that petitioner has a right to perform the duties of "Adichuthali and Pathramthepu" as Karaima and customary right performed by members of the family of the petitioner at Keezhedom Cheranellore Bhagavathy Temple.

ii) Issue a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to accept the rights of the petitioner and her family of the Karaima rights enjoyed by them.”

2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 26.02.2013. The learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 3. Despite giving notice, the 4^th respondent did not choose to appear and file counter affidavit. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the 1^st respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board.

4. The petitioner submitted an application for appointment as Adichuthali and Pathramtheppu in Keezhedam Cheranelloor Bhagavathy Temple pursuant to the notification issued by the 1^st respondent in that regard. She was invited for an interview on 11.06.2012. She was unable to appear before the Board on that day and had submitted an application seeking time. Since she was denied an opportunity to attend the interview, she filed W.P.(C) No.17550 of 2012 before this Court. Ext.P2 is the judgment in that Writ Petition. In terms of the directions in Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard and also to attend the interview. However, she was not appointed. But the 4^th respondent was appointed in the post of Adichuthali and Pathramtheppu in Keezhedam Cheranelloor Bhagavathy Temple. The petitioner now alleges that the appointment of the 4^th respondent is in total negation of her Karaima right.

5. In answer to the said allegation, the 1^st respondent in the counter affidavit dated 25.10.2018 stated as follows:-

“3. It is submitted that the above writ petition was filed by the petitioner on the premise that the Devaswom Board is conducting selection to the karaima service of the temple in question. It is true that the petitioner applied for the post of Adichuthali and Pathram Theppu in the Keezhedam Cheranellore Bhagavathy temple. The petitioner was called for an interview on 11.06.2012 in the office of the Cochin Devaswom Board at Thrissur. Since the petitioner could not participate in the interview, the petitioner approached this Honourable Court by filing