N.P. Vinodkumar and ors. Vs. the Malabar Devaswom Board, the Temple Committee,

N.P. Vinodkumar and ors. vs The Malabar Devaswom Board, the Temple Committee, ;The Assistant Commissioner and the Trustee and Ge

Disposition Petition allowed Court Kerala Decided Jun 01, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/903516

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/903516
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Antony Dominic, J.
Decided On: Jun 01, 2010
Case Number: WP(C) No. 16707 of 2010(K)
Subject: Service
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

N.P. Vinodkumar and ors.

Advocate KRB Kaimal (Sr.), Adv.

Respondent

The Malabar Devaswom Board, the Temple Committee, ;The Assistant Commissioner and the Trustee and Ge

Advocate K. Mohanakannan, SC

Excerpt

- antony dominic, j.1. heard both sides.exts.p1 to p3 are the orders issued by the 4th respondent appointing the petitioners as junior accountant, attender, mat boy, room boy and receptionist in the services of the 4th respondent. apparently, in pursuance to ext.p5, the first respondent has issued ext.p4 proceedings to the 4th respondent directing termination of the service of the petitioners. on the basis of ext.p4 when the 4th respondent initiated further steps for impelemnting the said order this writ petition has been filed.2. although several contentions have been raised on the merits of the order itself, still having regard to the fact that ext.p4 order was issued without putting the petitioners on notice or giving them an opportunity to file objections or hearing them, i do not think it is necessary for this court to enter into the controversy at least at this stage.3. in the circumstances i dispose of this writ petition directing that ext.p4 shall be treated as notices, requiring the petitioners to file their objections to the proposal mentioned therein. it is directed that it will be open to the petitioners to file their objections to ext.p4 within 10 days from today and if such objections are filed, the first respondent shall issue notice hearing the petitioners and pass fresh orders in the matter.4. until orders are passed in the matter as above, status quo as on date in so far as the service of the petitioners shall be continued.

Full Judgment

Antony Dominic, J.

1. Heard both sides.

Exts.P1 to P3 are the orders issued by the 4th respondent appointing the petitioners as Junior Accountant, Attender, Mat Boy, Room Boy and Receptionist in the services of the 4th respondent. Apparently, in pursuance to Ext.P5, the first respondent has issued Ext.P4 proceedings to the 4th respondent directing termination of the service of the petitioners. On the basis of Ext.P4 when the 4th respondent initiated further steps for impelemnting the said order this writ petition has been filed.

2. Although several contentions have been raised on the merits of the order itself, still having regard to the fact that Ext.P4 order was issued without putting the petitioners on notice or giving them an opportunity to file objections or hearing them, I do not think it is necessary for this Court to enter into the controversy at least at this stage.

3. In the circumstances I dispose of this writ petition directing that Ext.P4 shall be treated as notices, requiring the petitioners to file their objections to the proposal mentioned therein. It is directed that it will be open to the petitioners to file their objections to Ext.P4 within 10 days from today and if such objections are filed, the first respondent shall issue notice hearing the petitioners and pass fresh orders in the matter.

4. Until orders are passed in the matter as above, status quo as on date in so far as the service of the petitioners shall be continued.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties N.P. Vinodkumar and ors. vs The Malabar Devaswom Board, the T... Same Subject Service Same Judge Antony Dominic, J.

Service