Ramachandra Menon, J.Whether the dictum contained in the Secretary, State of Karanataka and others v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] [LQ/SC/2006/324] , rendered by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court giving certain benefits to have the long tenure of temporary service of more than 10 years in respect of irregular appointments (unlike illegal appointments) to be regularised as a one time measure could be taken as an ever to go exercise to give regularisation of temporary employees, as and when they complete 10 years service, as sought to be effected by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee Is the said Committee justified in taking a resolution to regularise the service of such temporary hands who are appointed quite recently, even in the year 2013 - 14, that too, without calling for applications by way of wide paper publication, but for confining such exercise notifying on the Notice Board of the Devaswom Board or at times in certain local dailies without calling for applications to fill up the regular vacancies Is it appropriate for the Committee to ignore the claim of persons (temporary hands) who had served the Devaswom longer, even for more than 10 years and to extend the benefit of regularisation to persons having much lesser tenure of about two years, merely for the reason that the former group having been sent out already were not continuing in the service of the Devaswom These are the vital points to be considered and clarified in these matters .

2. The terms and conditions of service of employees in the Guruvayoor Devaswom are governed by the provisions of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978 and the Regulations framed by the Managing Committee [in exercise of the power conferred upon the Committee under Section 39 of the said Act]. As per the provisions of the, the appointment of staff is to be carried out by the Managing Committee, whereas the power to appoint temporary hands to meet the need of the hour is vested upon the Administrator appointed/nominated under Section 14 of the Act, of course, with the prior approval of the Managing Committee, in terms of Regulation No.17 framed by the Managing Committee as aforesaid.

3. As per the Regulations, appointment to the regular post of L.D. Clerks, Scavangers/Sweepers (as involved in the present case) is to be made by the Committee from the eligible hands. The method of appointment is by way of direct recruitment, either by conducting a written test or interview or both.

4. It is not a matter of dispute that no regular appointment was being effected by the Committee in the Guruvayoor Devaswom for quite long. Due to one or other reason, the vacancies were being filled up by appointing persons on temporary basis and they were permitted to be continued and regularised in the due course.

5. Such appointment was being done merely on the basis of interview, that too just by notifying the same in the Notice Board of the Devaswom and at times in some local dailies as well. This became the order of the day, which was sought to be challenged from different corners and ultimately, the matter came up for consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.32138 of 2011.

6. After hearing both the sides, a learned Single Judge of this Court made it clear point blank, that in so far as the appointment in Guruvayoor Devaswam was public appointment, it was quite arbitrary and illegal on the part of the Devaswom to have appointed persons without effecting wide publication in newspapers, but for the notice put up on the Notice Board of the Devaswom. The Bench also observed that the question of unemployment was acute in the State and nobody could be expected to come to the office of the Devaswom everyday for watching the Notice Board to know the availability of any vacancy. The course pursued by the Devaswom was deprecated and as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 27.06.2012, it was made clear, whether the appointment was temporary or permanent, the Devaswom had to notify the same giving wide publication, at least in one of the newspapers. The fact remains that the said verdict has become final, despite which it is not being honoured by the Devaswom in letter and spirit as revealed from the course and proceedings being discussed herein.

7. W.A. No. 481 of 2016 has been filed by the writ petitioner, on being aggrieved of the verdict passed by the learned single Judge, declining interference with regard to the prayer sought for to direct the Devaswom to finalise the selection notified in the year 2001. In fact, interference was declined by the learned Single Judge holding that no such relief could be extended to the petitioner, who was simply sleeping over the issue for more than 10 years, till filing of the writ petition in the year 2011 [W.P.(C) No.24917 of 2011].

8. W.P.(C) No.32574 of 2014 has been filed by the writ petitioner, when the Guruvayoor Devaswom proceeded with steps to regularise the service of temporary hands in a quite arbitrary manner even by seeking to give permanent appointment to persons having temporary service of just a few months or few years.

9. The resolution taken by the Board by way of Ext.P3 shows the list of persons to be regularised and states that non-extension of such benefit will amount to violation of human rights/fundamental rights/such other rights of the employees concerned. This was followed by Ext.P5 resolution dated 15.05.2015, whereby the list came to be re-arranged, but still extending the benefit of regularisation to temporary hands who were recruited even in the year 2014. The writ petition was amended to an appropriate extent, seeking to interdict the above proceedings as highly arbitrary and illegal.

10. Though the Devaswom took a resolution to regularise the service of temporary hands having only two years of service, on a misconceived notion as to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Umadevis case [cited supra], the Government did not give approval to the same and authorised the Devaswom only to regularise the service of persons who had completed 10 years of temporary service. It is brought on record that such persons have been regularised in service as per the initial exercise of regularisation carried out in the year 2010 in terms of the observations made by the Apex Court in Umadevis case [cited supra] (paragraph 53/44 in SCC/AIR respectively). The persons who were left out by the Government are the petitioners in some of the writ petitions; who seek for a direction to have the resolution taken by the Devaswom to be implemented and to interdict the order passed by the Government/Commissioner to the extent they are aggrieved. Some other persons have approached this Court with the grievance, particularly pointing out that they were serving the Devaswom for quite long, though as temporary hands and that there was no complaint with regard to their service in any manner, nor was there any disciplinary proceedings. Still, on a fine morning, they were ousted by another set of temporary employees to the choice of the Devaswom and subsequently, the latter group is sought to be regularised in service based on the resolution taken in this regard; which is stated as highly arbitrary and illegal and hence the challenge. All these matters have been tagged up together, being connected with a common thread involving the question of regularisation of temporary hands stated as in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Umadevis case [cited supra] and for not filling up the regular posts by way of proper selection after wide publication.

11. Heard Mr. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal - the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.32574 of 2014, Shri V. Krishna Menon - the learned Standing Counsel for the Guruvayoor Devaswom, Shri K. Jayakumar - the learned counsel for the party respondents in W.P.(C) Nos. 19263 and 28743 of 2011 , Mr. Jaju Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents in W.P.(C) Nos. 4628, 7899, 14871, 15060 of 2012 and 32574 of 2014, and the learned counsel for other parties, besides the learned Government Pleader.

12. W.P.(C) No.32574 of 2014 is treated as the lead case and reference is made to the parties and proceedings as referred to in the said case, except where it is separately mentioned with reference to the context.

13. Way back on 16.02.2001, Ext.P1 notification was issued by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee, inviting application from eligible candidates to fill up 18 regular posts of Scavengers and the future vacancies, which may arise in the due course. The last date for submitting the application was on 15.03.2001 . As per Ext.P2, the petitioner also applied for the regular selection. But no further steps were pursued by the Devaswom, despite collecting huge amounts from the applicants by way of application fee. At the same time, temporary employees were being engaged to various posts including the post of Scavenger and some of them were regularised, on pick and choose basis, by the Devaswom. After a long wait, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 24917 of 2011 to direct the Devaswom to complete the process of regular selection notified as per Ext.P1.

14. When the above writ petition was pending and though no counter affidavit was filed by the Devaswom, a decision was taken by the Managing Committee of the Devaswom vide resolution No.299 (Ext.P3) for regularising the temporary hands stating some strange reasons and authorising the sub-committee constituted in this regard to submit a report within one month. This made the petitioner to challenge Ext.P3 by way of W.P.(C) No. 32574 of 2014, wherein an interim order was passed on 04.12.2014 staying all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3. The said interim order subsequently came to be modified as per the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by a learned Judge of this Court, whereby the Guruvayoor Devaswom was permitted to proceed with further steps and directing to submit a report before this Court.

15. It was thereafter that Ext. P5 resolution was passed by the Devaswom Managing Committee on 15.05.2015 to regularise the service of temporary employees w.e.f. 01.04.2015, subject to the approval of the Government. As per the said resolution, the Devaswom reiterated its earlier stand to have the temporary hands regularized, lest, there should be "any violation of human rights/fundamental rights of the temporary employees" and as if it were in conformity with the law declared by the Apex Court in Umadevis case [cited supra]. List of the persons who were stated as qualified; list of persons who were not qualified; besides such other list in respect of various posts giving particulars of the candidates showing their date of birth, caste, qualification, age as on the date of appointment, whether initial appointment was based on any notification and interview and the vacancy position were also attached along with Ext. P5. Another important aspect to be noted is that, earlier, in conformity with the decision taken by the Government to leave the appointment of staff in the Travancore Devaswom Board and Cochin Devaswom Board to be effected by the PSC, resolutions were passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom as well in this regard on 12.02.2007 and 03.10.2007. However, the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee later took a U-turn and resolved as per Ext. P5, to cancel the earlier resolutions leaving appointment to the PSC [taken on 10.02.2007 and 03.10.2007], which was decided to be informed to the Government, Devaswom Secretary and also to the Devaswom Commissioner. It is contended by the petitioners that hundreds of undeserving candidates have been included in the list, intending them to be regularized, also pointing out nobody has completed 10 years of service as temporary service, but for a few. It is pointed out that even persons having just nine months of service as a temporary hand are proposed to be regularized and in many cases, as revealed from the entry in the last column of the list, there was no notification or any selection process. With reference to list A forming part of Ext.P5, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, 272 persons are going to be regularized; among whom only 14 persons have got more than 10 years service. In respect of list B, in several cases, there was no notification or any process of selection and many persons are not having the requisite qualification or they are over-aged. In several cases, dates of appointment have not been given, still, about 50 persons are going to be regularized from list B, submits the learned counsel. This being the position, the circumstances which led to the decision to regularize the service of the temporary hands, considering the alleged continuance of service or hardships is actually a non-existing ground and that the process and procedure is nothing but arbitrary and illegal. It is also pointed out that, one time regularization for those who had already crossed 10 years of service as envisaged in Umadevis case [cited supra] has been effected by the Devaswom, vide Ext. R1 (b) resolution No. 69 dated 25.11.2010 and as such, no more similar exercise was liable to be pursued, but for filling up the regular vacancies after wide publicity and a proper selection process.

16. According to the learned standing counsel for the Devaswom, one time regularization [after passing the verdict in Umadevis case (cited supra)] was effected as per Ext.R1(b) Resolution No. 69 dated 25.11.2010. It is stated that, though Ext. P1 notification was issued in the year 2001 for filling up the regular vacancies, some litigations were pending before this Court as O.P. Nos. 5177 of 1999 and 15437 of 1999, which were disposed of only in the year 2005; by virtue of which, Ext. P1 could not be acted upon. Shortly thereafter, Ordinance No. 5 dated 05.02.2007 was promulgated by the Governor, leaving the recruitment in the Devaswom Board [Cochin Devaswom Board and Travancore Devaswom Board] to the PSC. It was soon thereafter that the Guruvayoor Devaswom Board also passed a resolution as per Ext. R1 (a) dated 10.02.2007 to leave the recruitment to the PSC, though it was subsequently changed as per Ext. P5, in view of the reasons stated therein. As per Ext. R1(b) Resolution No. 69 dated 25.11.2010, it was decided to regularize all persons having two years or more temporary service, following the principles in the Umadevis case [cited supra]. But on forwarding the proceedings for approval, the Commissioner gave sanction for regularisation of only those persons who were having 10 years or more temporary service. Based on the said approval, 18 persons were regularised in service. The learned standing counsel further submits that regularisation of temporary hands, who had completed 10 years of service was being pursued in the Devaswom at different points of time and till 06.11.2012, 124 temporary hands in different posts were regularised with the approval of the Commissioner/Government. It is also pointed out that 24 mahouts, who were serving the Devaswom on temporary basis were regularised as per Resolution No. 24 dated 02.08.2014 and the Government gave approval in this regard on 31.10.2014. Since the Commissioner/Government had given sanction/approval/regularisation of only those temporary hands, who were having 10 years or more service, the remaining persons who were included in the list prepared by the Devaswom [who were beneficiary to the resolution taken in this regard] approached this Court by filing different writ petitions, wherein Ext. R1(c) interim order of stay was granted by this Court on 22.12.2011. It was in the said circumstances, that the entire facts and figures were considered, leading to resolution No. 299 dated 25.08.2014 [Ext. P3] deciding to regularise the service of the temporary employees, in view of the serious hardships pointed out by the employees. It was only at this point of time, that the petitioner sought to challenge the said proceedings [Ext. P3] by filing W.P.(C) No. 24917 of 2011, to cause Ext. P1 notification/regular appointment to be finalized and on dismissal of the same [for being belated], he has come up in Writ Appeal No. 481 of 2016. The learned standing counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has not challenged the temporary appointment effected by the Devaswom at any point of time and that, as on the date of filing the proceedings, he is overaged, having crossed the age of 45 years. The learned standing counsel submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, as it is to be regarded only as a public interest litigation [being not qualified], which course is not open in service matters in view of the law declared by the Apex Court/this Court. It is further pointed out that the regularisation sought to be made by the Devaswom is a policy decision, which is not liable to be intercepted and further that there is no violation of the principles of natural justice or the provisions of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act or the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulation Act and so also, there is no violation of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India.

17. W.P.(C) No. 4070 of 2015 has been filed by two persons, who responded to the notification for filling up of five existing and the future vacancies of the LDC, as per notification No. R1-720/2000 dated 27.10.2000. No further steps were taken by the Devaswom, despite the representation and reminders and the regular selection was not done. The proceedings of the Devaswom regularising the service of temporary hands in different posts have been produced and marked as Exts. P5 to P11, as noted below:-

Ext. P11 dated 25.11.2010 pertains to the resolution No. 69 as to the regularisation of temporary hands in different posts as "one time measure" pursuant to Umadevis case [cited supra] [having 10 years of temporary service or more].

Ext. P10 dated 01.03.2011 is as to the regularisation of 18 class IV/room boys etc. having 10 years of temporary service.

Ext. P7 Resolution No. 2 dated 02.07.2012 as to the regularisation of Krishnattam workers having 10 years of temporary service.

Ext. P6 dated 18.09.2012 resolution No. 125 - with reference to regularisation of Scavengers having 10 years of temporary service.

Ext. P8 dated 14.06.2013 resolution No. 155 - as to the regularisation of Sweepers/Scavengers having 10 years or more.

Ext. P9 dated 11.06.2014 - as to the regularisation of Sweepers/Scavengers/Vilakkuthuda of 10 years of temporary service or more.

Ext. P5 dated 02.08.2014 - resolution No. 24 - with reference to regularisation of 53 temporary mahouts.

18. From the above, it can be seen that regularisation of temporary hands was a regular phenomenon and was being adopted by the Devaswom as a method of recruitment, which is contrary to the Statute/law declared by the Apex Court in Umadevis case [cited supra]. In fact, the Devaswom Commissioner had written to the Administrator and the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee, vide Ext. P12 dated 25.09.2013, as to the said undesirable activity and directing the Guruvayoor Devaswom to go for direct recruitment [in connection with the post of Scavenger]; also mentioning that weightage could be given to those who were having 10 years of temporary service or more. As per Ext.P13 order dated 03.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner, on regularisation of Scavengers who were having 10 years of temporary service or more, various conditions were incorporated and the Devaswom was alerted in this regard. The fact remains that, Exts. P12 and P13 were simply given a go-bye and the Guruvayoor Devaswom was continuing to engage temporary hands and later, regularizing them in service as a matter of course, without sufficient publication or due process of selection.

19. It is pointed out that by virtue of Section 19 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, appointment of officers and employees in the Devaswom has to be effected by the Managing Committee. 10% of the posts stand reserved for SC/ST. In fact, the selection has to be conducted by the Sub Committee appointed by the Managing Committee, which is governed by the Regulations framed by the Managing Committee stipulating the qualification, age, method of selection etc. Regulation No.4 clearly says that the appointing authority is the Managing Committee, while Regulation No.5 stipulates the method of recruitment, i.e., (a) by Direct recruitment ( by test or interview or both); (b) by promotion and (c) in respect of temporary posts (with liberty to the Managing Committee to decide the method). The said provisions are extracted below for convenience of reference.

"Regulation No.4:

"4. Appointing Authority: The appointing authority for all the posts in the Guruvayur Devaswom Service shall be the Managing Committee. Regulation No.5.

"5. Method of Appointment: Appointment to the following categories of posts in the Guruvayur Devaswom Service shall be made as follows:

(a) Direct recruitment shall be made after due publication of notices inviting applications. Eligible persons shall be called for written test or interview or both and selection made on the basis of merit.

(b) In the case of appointments by promotion or direct recruitments, direct recruitment shall be resorted to only if suitable qualified candidates for promotion are not available

(c) The Managing Committee shall decide the method of appointment in the case of temporary posts as and when required

Provided that the posts of Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Personal Assistant to administrator, Accounts Officer and Manager shall be treated as selection category. Appointment to the selection category shall be made by the Managing Committee from among members eligible for appointment to such category on the basis of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal.

xx xx xx

(d) Qualifications:- xx xx xx

(e) Qualification regarding age: (i) xx

xx xx

(ii) The Managing Committee shall prescribe age limit in the case of temporary posts as and when required."

20. The different posts are mentioned in the Schedule and all the posts involved herein are direct recruitment posts [LDC at Sl.No.62, Sweeper at Sl.No.77 and Scavenger at Sl.No.78]. Going by the contents of the above provisions, conferring power of appointment upon the Managing Committee is obviously in respect of regular/permanent appointment (in respect of direct recruitment and promotion as well), besides the power of appointment to "temporary posts". Appointment to a temporary post is different from temporary appointment in a regular post. Temporary appointment in a regular post is governed by Regulation No.17, which reads as follows:

"17. Temporary appointment:- Where it is necessary in the interest of the Devaswom owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post and there would be undue delay in making such appointment in accordance with the regulations, the Administrator may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with the regulations temporarily after obtaining the approval of the Managing Committee. Provided that a person appointed under this regulation shall not be allowed to continue in such post for a period exceeding 180 days and that he shall be paid the minimum pay in the time scale of pay applicable to such post. "

21. From the above, it is quite clear that the appointing authority to effect temporary appointment is none other than the Administrator, of course, with the approval of the Managing Committee and it shall be for a maximum period of 180 days. In the instant case, no pleading is raised by the Devswom that the Administrator had sought for approval to effect temporary appointment at any time or that such appointments were effected by the Administrator with the approval of the Managing Committee. The said power under Regulation 17 cannot be simply taken over by the Managing Committee, merely stating that as per Regulation 4, appointing authority is the Managing Committee, which, as mentioned above, is only in respect of filling up of regular posts, either by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion, apart from filling up the temporary posts under Regulation No.5 (c) [where the Managing Committee is at liberty to decide the method of appointment]. Since the Managing Committee is bound by the and Regulations, there is violation of the provisions of law in this regard. It is to be noted that pendency of O.P.Nos. 5177 and 15437 of 1999 was never taken as a bar or hurdle by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee while proceeding with the regular selection to the posts notified in the year 2001, vide Ext.P1. There was no interim order as well. If this be the position, why it was not pursued further, remains a matter of mystery, which has not been properly substantiated to the satisfaction of this Court, whereas the Devaswom was going all along with temporary engagements and subsequent regularisation, which is totally alien to the Scheme of the/Regulations. This is more so, since the Devaswom, while passing Ext.P3/P5 Resolutions, laments that they have no supporting staff and much hardships are being felt; which is stated as a reason for regularisation of service of temporary hands having even much less than one year of service. It was for the Devaswom to have done sufficient home work as to the job requirements, vacancy position, number of retirements already occurred and which were to occur in the near future and such other aspects, taking appropriate steps for filling up the vacancies on regular basis; instead of going on temporary appointment and subsequent regularisation, confining the zone of consideration only to a limited few, for want of sufficient publication and also for want of non-intimation as to the chance for getting regulalrised, to make the aspirants in the open market aware of the position.

22. In DBP Nos. 79 of 2014 and 60 of 2015, it is seen that an interim order was passed by this Court on 06.07.2015 to report vacancies in the Cochin Devaswom and Travancore Devaswom Board to the Devaswom Recruitment Board. It appears that the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee has wrongly understood the scope of Umadevis case (cited supra) and nurtured a misconceived idea as to the scope of regularisation. Instead of giving the benefit as a one time measure to regularise the service of persons having more than 10 years (which already has been effected as per the resolution No.69 dated 25.11.2010) they were going, on year after year, regularising the service of temporary hands on completion of 10 years of service as a routine process, even beyond all logical limits, when they resolved, as per Ext.P3, to regularise the service of persons having even two years continuous service as temporary hands and even in respect of persons who were having less than one year of service, as enlisted in Ext.P5.

23. It is pointed out that, pursuant to the Government decision and subsequent Ordinance to leave the field of recruitment in the Cochin Devaswom Board and the Travancore Devaswom Board to the purview of PSC, the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee also had requested the Government to suitably amend the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act and the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Recruitment Act, to have a similar course. It is stated that nothing has transpired, despite reminders.

24. The Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 was amended in the year 2008, facilitating the recruitment through the PSC, which was varied in the year 2012 by a further amendment, whereby mode of appointment through the PSC was withdrawn. Though appointment through the PSC was facilitated during 2008-2012, since the relevant/additional rules were not framed, no appointment was effected through the PSC. It was much later, that an Ordinance was issued in the year 2015, whereby Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board was constituted by the Government in respect of all the Devaswoms mentioned in the said Act. According to the learned counsel for the Devaswom, the provisions of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act and the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations Act have not been amended to the requisite extent, which according to the petitioners, who challenge the proceedings of the Devaswom is not necessary; in view of the relevant Ordinance issued in 2014, followed by Act 16 of 2015, which clearly stipulates that the same is applicable in respect of the Travancore Devaswom, Cochin Devaswom, Malabar Devaswom, Koodalmanikkam Devaswom and also Guruvayoor Devaswom and hence, there is no obscurity. There is a contention that the Guruvaryoor Devaswom Act had obtained the assent of the President and no amendment has been made so far to cause the appointment to be made through the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board constituted under the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 (Act 16 of 2015) brought into force w.e.f. 01.03.2014, which cannot be applied in this case. (A copy of the is produced with the statement filed by the said Recruitment Board in W.P.(C) No. 30801 of 2016).

25. As mentioned already, when W.P.(C) No. 32574 of 2014 came up for consideration before a learned Judge of this Court, it was observed that the petitioner had approached this Court only belatedly [with reference to the claim for regular appointment notified in 2001] and hence that the prayers were not liable to be acted upon. It was also observed in the said circumstance that it will only remain as PIL and it was accordingly, that the matter was caused to be referred to the Division Bench as per the order dated 15.10.2015. Before passing the said order, there was an interim order of stay, which was subsequently modified permitting the Devaswom to proceed with steps for regularisation, except in the case of Scavenger, L.D. Clerk and Lineman (involved in the cases pending consideration before this Court). It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom that, though temporary vacancies were notified in 2006, 2007, 2013 and 2014 in the local dailies, the petitioner did not make any application. It is however conceded that such notices were being published mostly in the local notice Board, as the temporary engagement was merely from locals, who alone would be available for such engagement. It is further pointed out that, although the interim order was modified as per order dated 03.08.2015 permitting the Devaswom to proceed with the selection in respect of other posts [except the posts of Scavenger, LDC and Lineman], it was actually not proceeded with, but kept in abeyance. There is inordinate delay in approaching this Court and there is no whisper as to what the petitioners were doing for the past 13 years and hence they cannot question the regularisation now.

26. The learned Standing Counsel for the Recruitment Board submits with reference to Section 2(b) of16 of 2015 , brought into effect from 01.03.2014 [Ext.R5(g) in W.P.(C)No. 30801 of 2016] that the Devaswom Board means the Cochin Devaswom Board, Travancore Devaswom Board, Malabar Devaswom Board, Guruvayoor Devaswom Board and Koodalmanikkam Devaswom. Section 9 deals with the power and functions of the Board and hence after the said enactment, all appointments stand vested with the Devaswom Recruitment Board and nobody else. Since the had come into force with effect from 01.03.2014, Ext.R5 (h) decision dated 25.08.2014, Ext.R5(i) decision dated 02.08.2014 and Ext.R5(j) decision dated 15.05.2015 (having passed after commencement of the) are not correct or sustainable in law.

27. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 15060 of 2012 points out that the first petitioner is having more than 10 years of temporary service and was working in the post of Ayah in the school belonging to Devaswom. Despite the better rights and credentials, she was simply sent out and somebody else of the choice of the Managing Committee was appointed as a temporary hand in 2012. When the course pursued by the Devaswom was challenged, with reference to the process of selection for temporary engagement, the said petitioner was also permitted to participate in the interview, as per the oral instruction given by this Court in this regard. Though she participated in the process, she was not selected and undue favours were extended to respondents 6 and 7, who were appointed on temporary basis and are now sought to be regularised. In the said circumstance, the writ petition was amended, also challenging the appointment of the respondents 6 and 7. Even at the time of taking Resolution No.69 by the Guruvaryoor Devaswom vide Ext.P14, deciding to regularise the service of the persons having two years or more, the petitioners were still omitted to be included in the list and hence the prayer to include them in Ext.P14. It is also pointed out that, one Smt. Ajitha A.S., who had also applied along with the second petitioner in the year 2007 was included in the list, while the petitioner came to be avoided, for no reason at all. There is a further contention that some of the teachers working in the school were terminated from service in 2006-07, when they approached this Court by filing writ petitions, whereupon their claim was directed to be considered. Pursuant to this, they were decided to be included and accordingly, they were reinstated and subsequently regularised in service (Ext.P16). Still, the petitioners are made to wait outside, which is stated as an instance of arbitrary exercise; more so when they came to be excluded even as per proceedings dated 15.05.2015, while deciding to regularise the service of respondents 6 and 7.

28. With reference to the pleading in W.P.(C)No. 2008 of 2016 (where the post involved is LDC), the version of the Administrator of Guruvayoor Devaswom is that the employees concerned do not have the minimum service of 10 years and that the decision of the Managing Committee is bad. The case of the Devaswom is that the Administrator of the Devaswom has no power to say so and that the Administrator has only to implement the decision taken by the Devaswom. This is sought to be controverted by referring to the Guruvayoor Devaswom Rules, 1980, to the effect that the duty cast upon the Administrator is not to implement each and every decision of the Managing Committee passed contrary to law, but implement only the lawful decision taken by the Managing Committee. There is a contention for the Devaswom that it is not for the Administrator to decide what is lawful and what is not; and that the order of the Administrator stands suspended by the Managing Committee, as on date. It is to be noted that, no counter affidavit has been filed by the Administrator, who is a Sub Collector nominated by the Government. Counter affidavit has been filed only by the Chairman of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee; presumably in view of the apparent conflict of opinion between the Administrator and the Committee.

29. Sri. Jayakumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 19263 of 2011 and 28743 of 2011 [Scavengers and Linemen respectively] submits that the main prayer is to implement the resolution No. 69 taken by the Managing Committee of the Devaswom vide Ext.P6 dated 25.11.2010 as such. It is stated that the said resolution was taken to regularise the temporary hands having two years of service, which was based on a legal opinion obtained in this regard and as such, there is nothing wrong in it. Whether the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Umadevis case [cited supra] is to be understood based on such legal opinion obtained, if it be contrary [howsoever high, the status of the opinion-giver be] is not answered by the Devaswom or the learned counsel. It is stated that, the writ petitions came to be filed, when the temporary employees were sought to be replaced by another set of temporary employees. Later, election was declared to the General Assembly in the State and by virtue of the change in Government, the Managing Committee of the Guruvayoor Devaswom also got changed in the due course. It is conceded that no regular appointment was being effected in the Guruvayoor Devaswom from 2001 onwards. With regard to the subsequent course and events, the learned senior counsel pointed out that Ext. P1 resolution passed by the Board/Managing Committee to regularise the service of the persons having "two years" of service is a policy decision, which ought not to have been modified or watered down by the Government/Devaswom Commissioner, for want of any power in this regard. The Deputy Commissioner is never placed above the Managing Committee and once the schedule is created and approved, the power of appointment is always with the Managing Committee, in terms of Section 19 of the Act, which does not stipulate that assent of the Commissioner is required for effecting appointment. The Statute only says that, if any change in the schedule is required, it shall only be with the approval of the Commissioner. This Court is of the view that the jurisdiction being exercised by this Court in connection with the affairs of the Temple is parens patriae jurisdiction, Hindu Deity being a perpetual minor, care has to be taken to see that the action taken by Managing Committee and in turn by the Devaswom, is transparent in all respects and in conformity with the statutory provisions and the law declared by the Apex Court/this Court on the point.

30. A reference to Regulation No. 17 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations 1983 may be useful in this context, which reads as follows :

"Temporary appointment :- Where it is necessary in the interest of the Devaswom owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill immediately a vacancy in a post and there would be undue delay in making such appointment in accordance with the regulations, the Administrator may appoint a person otherwise than in accordance with the regulations of temporarily after obtaining the approval of the Managing Committee.

Provided that a person appointed under this regulation shall not be allowed to continue in such post of a period of exceeding 180 days and that he shall be paid the minimum pay in the time scale of pay applicable to such post."

From the above, it is clear that such appointment by agreement under the special circumstances mentioned therein is only to fill the gap in view of the lacunae, for want of special provision to be brought about in consistency with the regulations as to the conditions of service, pay and allowances, discipline and conduct. A person appointed under the said regulation shall not be regarded as a regular member of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Service and shall not be entitled by reason of such engagement for appointment, giving any preferential claim. As it stands so, the appointment of a temporary hand, separately dealt with under Regulation No. 17, is to be effected by the Administrator with approval of the Managing Committee; which stands on a different footing and such power cannot be assumed by the Managing Committee as an alternate method of recruitment, in exercise of power of the Committee under the or Regulations which deals with appointment to the permanent cadre or appointment to any temporary posts [not temporary service in a permanent post].

31. A contention has been put forth by the learned senior counsel that the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in Umadevis case was considered in the subsequent decision rendered by two member Bench of the Apex Court in Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Nanu Ram and Others [(2006) 12 SCC 494], where regularisation of service of persons having two years was sought for and it was approved by the Apex Court. With reference to the directions given by the Apex Court in some cases to formulate a Scheme for regularization, the learned counsel submits that the said principle can be applied in the present case as well. The said submission does not appear to be attractive as the power vested with the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to pass appropriate orders to meet the ends of justice is not available with this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

32. The learned Govt. Pleader submits that it is not correct on the part of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee to contend that the Government and the Commissioner do not have any say in the affairs of the Devaswom. The position is evident from various provisions in the [The Guruvayoor Devaswom Act], as noted below:

Section 4(d) and (e), showing the constitution of the Managing Committee as nominated by the Government from the Hindus among the Council of Ministers.

Section 5(2), as to cessation of membership of a member on his resignation, to be accepted by the Government.

Section 5(3), conferring the power of the Government to order removal from the office of the membership referred to in sub-section 3(e).

Section 6 , as to the power of the Government dealing with dissolution and supersession of the Committee

Section 11, Restriction on the alienation of Devaswom Property unless sanctioned by the Commissioner.

Section 12, Limitation on the borrowing and lending powers of the Committee unless sanctioned by the Commissioner.

Section 13, Duty of the Committee to submit report to the Commissioner on the administration of the affairs of the Devaswom .

Section 14, Duty of the Managing Committee to appoint an officer of the Government, not below the rank of Deputy Collector, to be the Administrator of the Devaswom

Section 18(2), as to the power of approval of the establishment schedule by the Commissioner

Section 20, as to the power of the Commissioner to direct the Committee with regard to fixation of standard scales of expenditure.

Section 21, as to the power of the Commissioner to make alterations, omissions or additions in the budget .

Section 22, Restriction that no alteration shall be made in the working balance without the consent of the Commissioner (in relation to supplementary budget. )

Section 26, Power vested with the Commissioner with regard to rectification of defects disclosed in the audit and order of discharge against the Committee.

Section 33, Conferring power on the Government to call for records and pass orders , if the proceedings/orders//decisions taken by the Committee are in violation of the provisions of the or against the interest of the Devaswom and to have it modified or annulled or reversed or re-considered.

Section 36, conferring power to remove the difficulties in giving effect to the with the Government.

Section 38, the rule making power vested with the Government to carry out the purpose of the.

Section 39: The power of the Government to approve/disapprove/modify the regulations formulated by the Managing Committee.

Inspite of the above clear provisions and despite the specific instructions issued by the Government to the Managing Committee, the Guruvayoor Devaswom was continuing with temporary appointments and subsequent regularisation as a method of recruitment, which is contrary to law and hence liable to be intercepted.

33. In reply to submission made from the part of the Standing Counsel of the Devaswom, particularly as to the locus standi of the petitioners in W.P(C) No. 32574 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 4070 of 2015, as referred to in the reference order dated 15.10.2015, that no Public Interest Litigation (PIL) will lie in a service matter, it is stated that a writ petition taken up for consideration as PIL is not a service matter at all. It is with regard to the process of recruitment being pursued by the Guruvayoor Devaswom, contrary to the relevant provisions of law and also declaration made by this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment in W.P.(C) No.32138 of 2011, that the writ petition has been instituted. It is stated that the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in Jaleel P.P. v. P.K. Muralikrishnan and others [2014 (1) KHC 672 [LQ/KerHC/2014/117] ] with regard to scope of PIL in service matter is not applicable to the case in hand. That apart, presently, the individual grievance of the said petitioner is separately projected and is pending consideration. It is also pointed out that, unless and until a notification is issued by the Devaswom prescribing the qualification, age and such other requirements, it does not fit into the mouth of the Devaswom to contend that the petitioner is not qualified or over-aged and hence cannot file any case before this Court for appointment and hence the writ petition will remain only as PIL. It is only because of the wrong exercise done by the Devaswom, that the opportunity to be considered for selection is denied to the petitioner; that too, after collecting the application fee from several applicants, including the petitioner, which is still retained at the hands of the Devaswom, who has made unlalwful enrichment at the cost of the poor and hapless unemployed youth. The learned counsel adds that no notification was ever issued after 2001 for filling up the regular vacancies and even in respect of temporary hands, only sparingly was it notified in newspapers having circulation in local area, that too without disclosing the necessary details or as to the chance to get regularised in the due course. This is not a proper publication at all and not liable to be acted upon.

34. According to Mr. K.K. Mohammed Ravuf, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 29442 of 2012, the petitioner, who applied for the post of LDC had undergone all the regular steps for selection, though there was no written test, but for interview. Such engagement was against the sanctioned posts and it is contended with reference to Regulation 5, that though it was a regular selection, they were appointed only on temporary basis and hence the dictum in Umadevis case [cited supra] will not apply. But in response to the query raised by this Court, the learned counsel concedes that the notification inviting applications was never for any regular selection but for temporary engagement and that there was no indication that there was a chance to have their service regularised. As it stands so, the so called selection process stated as undergone by the petitioners in connection with the appointment as temporary hand in different capacities, is not liable to be termed or accepted as a regular process of selection, more so when no publicity was there all over Kerala, notifying the posts in question and no opportunity was given to all eligible persons to participate in the process; besides the fact that persons were picked up merely on the basis of an interview and that alone.

35. With reference to the claim and status of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.4628 of 2012 (Scheduled Caste candidate) and W.P.(C) 21928 of 2012 (open candidate), it is stated that they had applied for the posts of Malayalam Typist (temporary engagement). It is pointed out with reference to the materials procured and produced invoking the provisions of RTI Act in the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21998 of 2012, that there was only one mistake in the total 56 words typed; whereas in the case of the selected person, as revealed from Ext.P3(c), there were 12 mistakes out of 56 words. Still, the petitioner was simply pushed down and an undeserving hand with lesser merit has been selected which reveals the mode of selection pursued by the Managing Committee. Hence it is contended that the selected persons have to be replaced by appointing the petitioners, having more merit.

36. This is sought to be answered by the learned Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 and also by the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom, stating that, though there is no dispute with regard to the factual position as to the Malayalam typing test, proficiency in English was also considered, where the petitioners position was found below the respondents 3 and 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that, in respect of the post of Malayalam Typist, the test could only be in Malayalam Typing and nowhere was any English Typing test contemplated and hence there is absolutely no rationale in selecting the respondents 3 and 4, the less meritorious candidates; based on any English Typing Test.

37. With regard to the scope of the verdict passed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Umadevis case [cited supra], it is to be noted that the law stands declared in crystal clear terms holding that public appointment cannot be permitted to be made contrary to the relevant provisions of law and without giving a chance to eligible hands to participate in the process of selection. Regularization of temporary hands engaged against the sanctioned posts [where appointment was not illegal but irregular] was ordered, subject to satisfaction of 10 years of service as on that date, as a one time measure, which was specifically ordered not to be repeated. However, an exception was sought to be drawn by a two member Bench of the Supreme Court extending the benefits to workers who actually did not come within the purview of the observations made by the Apex Court in Umadevis case, as per the decision rendered in U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey [(2007) 11 SCC 92] [LQ/SC/2007/1220] , virtually watering down the binding effect of the Umadevis case. This came to be considered by a Larger Bench of the Apex Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others [(2008) 10 SCC 1] [LQ/SC/2008/2207] where the course pursued by the two member Bench was deprecated and it was made clear that the observations in the said verdict could only be considered as a obiter and shall never have any binding value on the High Courts, Tribunal and other judicial fora, nor shall it be made the basis for bypassing the principles laid down in Umadevis case [cited supra].

38. The genesis of law in this regard was discussed by a 3 member Bench of the Apex Court in Renu & Ors. v. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari and Anr. [2014 AIR SC 2175 = (2014) 14 SCC 40], where the issue was in relation to the recruitment of staff in the High Court and Subordinate Court of Delhi. The observations and directions given by the Apex Court as contained in paragraph 35 are relevant and hence reproduced below for convenience of reference :

In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of with the following directions:

i) All High Courts are requested to re-examine the statutory rules dealing with the appointment of staff in the High Court as well as in the subordinate courts and in case any of the rule is not in conformity and consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the same may be modified.

ii) To fill up any vacancy for any post either in the High Court or in courts subordinate to the High Court, in strict compliance of the statutory rules so made. In case any appointment is made in contravention of the statutory rules, the appointment would be void ab-initio irrespective of any class of the post or the person occupying it.

iii) The post shall be filled up by issuing the advertisement in at least two newspapers and one of which must be in vernacular language having wide circulation in the respective State. In addition thereto, the names may be requisitioned from the local employment exchange and the vacancies may be advertised byother modes also e.g. Employment News, etc. Any vacancy filled up without advertising as prescribed hereinabove, shall be void ab-initio and would remain unenforceable and inexecutable except such appointments which are permissible to be filled up without advertisement, e.g., appointment on compassionate grounds as per the rules applicable. Before any appointment is made, the eligibility as well as suitability of all candidates should be screened/tested while adhering to the reservation policy adopted by the State, etc., if any.

iv) Each High Court may examine and decide within six months from today as to whether it is desirable to have centralised selection of candidates for the courts subordinate to the respective High Court and if it finds it desirable, may formulate the rules to carry out that purpose either for the State or on Zonal or Divisional basis.

v) The High Court concerned or the subordinate court as the case may be, shall undertake the exercise of recruitment on a regular basis at least once a year for existing vacancies or vacancies that are likely to occur within the said period, so that the vacancies are filled up timely, and thereby avoiding any inconvenience or shortage of staff as it will also control the menace of ad-hocism.

39. It is relevant to note that the entire case law as on date was discussed by the Apex Court and much reliance was placed upon the verdict passed by the Constitution Bench in Umadevis case [cited supra]. The Apex Court also observed that, even with regard to the power entrusted with the Chief Justice under Article 229 (1) of the Constitution of India, it was subject to Article 16 (1), which guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in the matters relating to employment. The Apex Court also made it clear that, in making appointment or regulating other service conditions of staff of the High Court, power exercised by the Chief Justice was an administrative power supported by the constitutional backing and as such, the recruitment effected shall be transparent in all respects. Reference was also made to the verdict of the Apex Court in H.C. Puttaswamy & Ors. v. The Honble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore & Prs. [AIR 1991 SC 295 [LQ/SC/1990/670] ] dealing with similar situation interpreting the scope of Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India and the position prevailing in the State of Karnataka, whereby it was held that the appointment made by the Chief Justice of the High Court without advertising the vacancies was invalid, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.

40. It will be worthwhile to make a reference to other decisions as well, which made the Apex Court to give the specific directions as extracted above. The Apex Court had occasion to consider the issue of back door entries in public appointments in State of U.P. & Ors. v. U.P. State Law Officers Association and Ors. [AIR 1994 SC 1654 [LQ/SC/1994/117] ], when it was observed that the method of appointment was not calculated to ensure that the meritorious persons alone will always be appointed and that the appointment made will not be on any consideration other than merit. According to the Apex Court, in the absence of guidelines, appointment may be made on political or personal consideration and be arbitrary, which led to the declaration that those who came by the back door, have to go by the same door and that there need be no legal anxiety to save them.

41. In the instant case, going by the contents of Exts. P3 and P5 resolutions taken by the Board and also as revealed from the pleadings, in many cases, no proper notification was issued giving wide publication before the appointment of persons as temporary hands. In several instances, no manner of selection was indicated. In some cases, publication was made only in the Notice Board of the Devaswom; while in some other cases, it was given in some inconspicuous manner, in some local dailies. There is no case for the Devaswom that they had given wide publicity, inviting applications from all the eligible hands in the State or that it was made clear in the advertisement that the persons selected [admittedly on the basis of interview alone] will get chance to get regularised in the due course. The importance of proper advertisement with sufficient publicity was considered by the Apex Court, pointing out the important requirement of public appointment to be with transparency and holding that the advertisement must specify the number of posts available for selection/recruitment; qualification and eligibility criteria for such posts; schedule of recruitment process to be published, with certainty and clarity. It was also mentioned that the advertisement should specify the rule under which selection is to be made. The manner of inviting applications by putting up notice on the Notice Board was deprecated by the Apex Court in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamata Mohanty [2011 (3) SCC 436 [LQ/SC/2011/230] ], holding that vacancies must be in advance disseminating the information in reasonable manner in public domain ensuring maximum participation of all eligible candidates, thus ensuring right of equal opportunity. The relevant portion of the observation as contained in paragraph 36 is extracted below :

"36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit."

42. Various principles to be followed in the matter of public appointment have been codified by the Apex Court in M.P. State Coop Bank Ltd., Bhopal v. Nanuram Yadav & Ors. [(2007) 8 SCC 264] [LQ/SC/2007/1169] , as contained in paragraph 24, which is extracted below for convenience of reference :

24. It is clear that in the matter of public appointments, the following principles are to be followed :

1. The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the Rules/Government Circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment.

3. An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularization.

4. Those who come by back door should go through that door.

5. No regularization is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory Rules.

6. The Court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy.

7. If the mischief played so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show -cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection.

8. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside.

43. Deprecating the arbitrary process of appointment, the Apex Court held in [2014 AIR SC 2175 = (2014) 14 SCC 40] [cited supra] that if any such appointment is made, it can be challenged before a Court of law, explaining the scope of the writ of Quo Warranto. The observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph 15 is relevant, which is extracted below :

15. Where any such appointments are made, they can be challenged in the court of law. The quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has no title, he would be ousted from that office by judicial order. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the Judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from making appointment to public office against law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right. These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office who might be allowed to continue either with the connivance of the Executive or by reason of its apathy. It will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to an enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. For issuance of writ of quo warranto, the Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules and the person holding the post has no right to hold it. (Vide: The University of Mysore and Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr., AIR 1965 SC 491 [LQ/SC/1963/200] ; Shri Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 1213 [LQ/SC/1992/229] : (1992 AIR SCW 1093); B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., AIR 2001 SC 3435 [LQ/SC/2001/2148] : (2001 AIR SCW 3720); The Mor Modern Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt., Haryana and Anr., AIR 2002 SC 2513 [LQ/SC/2002/665] : (2002 AIR SCW 2826); Arun Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 1413 [LQ/SC/2006/203] : (2006 AIR SCW 1306); Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3515 [LQ/SC/2010/899] : (2010 AIR SCW 5567); and Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Dhobei Sahoo and Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 161 [LQ/SC/2013/1230] : (AIR 2004 SC 246 : 2013 AIR SCW 6339)).

From the above, it is clear that when the very process of recruitment made contrary to the relevant provisions of law and binding precedents is under challenge, it cannot be branded as a simple service matter, or the party who attempts to set the law in motion cannot be non-suited saying that he does not have any locus standi or with reference to the principle that no public interest litigation can be entertained in service matter. The nature of grievance projected herein stands on a clear footing, dealing with the process of recruitment and as such, the contentions raised by the learned standing for the Devaswom and also other parties concerned, questioning the maintainability of the writ petitions challenging the process of recruitment made by the Devaswom is only to be repelled. It is ordered accordingly.

44. The latest of the judgments governing the field of regularization as rendered by the Apex Court has been reported in (2017) 3 SCC 410 [LQ/SC/2016/1567] [State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. District Bar Association, Bandipora]. The law evolved so far, particularly, with reference to the mandate of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in Umadevis case and the principles laid down in Renu v. District and Sessions Judge [(2014) 14 SCC 40 = 2014 AIR SC 2175] were reiterated and it was held that regularisation could not be ordered as a matter of course. It was a case where daily-rated employees were engaged in connection with the affairs of the judiciary, including construction of the court complex in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The basic issue projected before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in a Public Interest Litigation preferred by the District Bar Association, Bandipora, was for a direction to transfer land, which was stated as to have earmarked for the construction of the District Court complex or to provide a suitable site. During the course of hearing of the said Public Interest Litigation, it was brought to the notice of the Court that an application had been filed by the daily-rated workers engaged in the High Court of Sri Nagar, claiming regularization. An interim order was passed on 07.10.2015, observing that the respondent State was duty bound to consider the claim of the daily-rated employees as a one time exception and regularize their service. The Secretary of the Department concerned was directed to file a status report about this aspect before the next date of hearing. The special leave petition filed by the State against the said order came to be dismissed by the Apex Court. However, the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court issued a further direction, in which it was noted that the State Government had, over a period of time, failed to create the requisite number of posts for the State judiciary and that in order to ensure that the work of the Court was not hampered, arrangements were to be made to engage persons on daily-wage rate. The High Court further observed that the State Government was duty-bound to create an equal number of posts for the absorption of daily-rated employees at the earliest. It was thereafter, that the matter was finalized directing the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir to regularize the service of 280 daily rated workers, which came to be challenged before the Apex Court. After referring to the law evolved by the Apex Court at different points of time and making a reference to Umadevis Case and Renus case, among such other cases as mentioned above, the principles were reiterated and it was held that the High Court was not justified in directing the State to regularise the service of the 209 daily rated employees as a one time measure, without properly considering the procedure, precedents, rules and regulations regarding regularization. The Bench also observed that such regularization, if at all justified [involving ireregular appointment and not illegal appointment] could be made, only if the employees concerned had completed 10 years of service or more in a duly sanctioned post, without the benefit of protection of any interim order of any Court or Tribunal and further that, such engagement should not have been illegal, though irregular. After stetting aside the verdict passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, the matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made and also in the light of the mandate laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevis case/Renus case and such other binding precedents. It will be worthwhile to go through paragraph 29 of the verdict, which hence is extracted below :

"29. We have adverted to the above grievances in order to emphasise that there is substantial merit in the submission that the High Court proceeded to issue directions for regularisation without considering either the legal position enunciated in the judgments of this Court referred to above and without considering the prevailing rules and regulations on the subject. The High Court has observed in its order dated 1-12-2015 that over a considerable period of time the State Government has not created the required number of posts for the State judiciary as a result of which work has been hampered. According to the High Court opined that these workers have been rendering work which should have been assigned to persons appointed on a regular basis against sanctioned posts. It is unfortunate, in our view, that the State Government has allowed the requirements of the State judiciary to be neglected over such a long period of time. The need to facilitate the proper functioning of the High Court and the district judiciary is a constitutional necessity which imposes a non-negotiable obligation on the State Government to create an adequate numbers of posts and to provide sufficient infrastructure. The State Government is to blame for the unfortunate situation which has resulted in a large number of persons being recruited on a daily-wage basis."

45. From the above, it is quite clear that the course pursued by the respondent Devaswom, attempting to regularise the service of temporary employees, who came to be appointed without much publicity and without giving chance to all the interested/eligible parties to have participated in the process of selection, under the cover/guise of extension of benefits flowing from paragraph 53 of the Umadevis case, that too, by passing a resolution to grant regularization even in the case of persons, who were having only two years and even much less of service cannot but be deprecated in the strongest possible words. We are of the view that the resolution taken by the Board is not having the support/foundation on the law declared by the Apex Court [which is the law of land and applicable to all, by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India].

46. As observed by the Apex Court in paragraph 29 of the Apex Court in (2017) 3 SCC 410 [LQ/SC/2016/1567] (cited supra), it is only the Devaswom, who is to be blamed for not effecting appointments of persons on regular basis to meet the requirement; but for repeatedly effecting temporary recruitments without much publicity and subsequent regularization, giving benefit only to a limited few; thus compromising with the merit and suitability, denying entry to a large sector of persons, who otherwise may be eligible and would have participated in the process of selection, had there been proper publicity, also mentioning that the recruitment process would be for regular posts or at least mentioning that there was a chance for being regularized; if all other requirements of selection were satisfied. In the said circumstances, the Devaswom is directed to identify the vacancies to be filled up on a permanent basis as above, and all the vacancies shall be reported for filling up on a regular basis in accordance with the relevant Rules, by reporting the same to the Devaswom Recruitment Board, which has already been brought into existence.

Merit of each case is separately dealt with in the above background.

47. W.A. No. 481 of 2016

This appeal is filed against dismissal of the O.P. seeking for a direction to complete the selection process initiated as per Exts.P1 and P2 dated 27.10.2000 and 16.10.2001 respectively. The ground for dismissal is that, it was in respect of a stale cause of action. The version of the appellants/petitioners was that, they became aggrieved only by Ext. P4, when a decision was taken to regularize certain other persons in the year 2010. We find that the said explanation is not palatable and hence it was rightly rejected by the learned single Judge and no interference is warranted. Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. However, we make it clear that, we do not endorse the proceedings of the Devaswom to regularize the service of the temporary hands as per Ext. P4 [which has already been dealt with in the preceding paragraphs] resolution No. 69 dated 25.11.2010 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Management Committee.

48. W.P.(C) No. 4070 of 2015

Challenge is against Resolution No. 299 dated 25.08.2014 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Management Committee for causing regularization of the workers engaged on temporary basis. There is also a prayer to direct the respondent Devaswom to notify the vacancies existing in all categories and conduct fresh selection, giving opportunity to all the candidates. In view of the reasons already given, we hold that Ext. P14 resolution is not correct or sustainable, which stands set aside. The Writ Petition stands allowed. We also find it appropriate to direct the Devaswom to conduct fresh selection after identifying the regular posts as made clear already.

49. W.P.(C) No. 4628 of 2012

The prayer is to intercept the fresh notification/selection to the post of Typist as per Ext. P2 and also to set aside Ext.P3 (d) Devaswom rank list, simultaneously seeking to regularise the service of the petitioners. In so far as this Court has already held that the decision taken by the GDMC to regularise service of the temporary hands is bad in all respects; the relief of regularization is not liable to be given to the petitioner. However, it will be for the Devaswom to conduct fresh selection against the regular posts as made clear already. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

50. W.P.(C) No. 4798 of 2015

The petitioners, who are stated as working as temporary hands in the Devaswom from 2008 to 2012 approached this Court seeking for a direction to include them as well for regularization of service in terms of Ext. P3 resolution No. 299 dated 25.08.2014. We have already held that the said resolution taken by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Management Committee is not correct or sustainable. Regularization sought for is not liable to be granted. Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.

51. The grievance in the following writ petitions are as noted below:-

W.P.(C) No. 7701 of 2012

The main prayer is to implement Ext. P6 resolution No. 69 dated 25.11.2010 taken by the respondent Devaswom for regularising the service of the petitioner, who is a temporary employee and was completed two years of service as on 25.11.2010 and that no sanction of the 3rd respondent/Commissioner is required in this regard.

W.P.(C) No. 7899 of 2012

The main prayer is to implement Ext. P6 resolution No. 69 dated 25.11.2010 taken by the respondent Devaswom for regularising the service of the petitioner, who are temporary employees and were completed two years of service as on 25.11.2010 and that no sanction of the 3rd respondent/Commissioner is required in this regard.

W.P.(C) No. 19263 of 2011

The main prayer is to implement Ext. P6 resolution No. 69 dated 25.11.2010 taken by the respondent Devaswom for regularising the service of the petitioners, who are temporary employees and were completed two years of service as on 25.11.2010 and that no sanction of the 3rd respondent/Commissioner is required in this regard.

W.P.(C) No. 20704 of 2012

The main prayer is to implement Ext. P2 resolution No. 69 dated 25.11.2010 taken by the respondent Devaswom for regularising the service of the petitioner, who is a temporary employee and was completed two years of service as on 25.11.2010 and that no sanction of the 3rd respondent/Commissioner is required in this regard.

W.P.(C) No. 28743 of 2011

The main prayer is to cause implementation of Ext. P6 resolution bearing No. 69 dated 25.11.2010 to regularise service of temporary employees having two years of service.

W.P.(C) No. 29442 of 2011

The prayer of the petitioner, who was stated as working as L.D. Clerk in the Devaswom on temporary basis from 26.04.2007, is to implement the resolution No. 69 dated 25.11.2010 and regularize the service of the temporary hands having two years service or more as requested by the Administrator of the Devaswom vide Ext. P2.

W.P.(C) No. 30078 of 2016

The petitioners 1 and 2 who are working as Assistant Lineman and petitioners 3 and 4 who are working as LDC on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order dated 12.08.2016 of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, praying not to terminate their service as a temporary hand, since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 30079 of 2016

The petitioners, who are working as Drivers in the Guruvayoor Devaswom on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and pray not to terminate their service as a temporary hand since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 30756 of 2011

The petitioners 1 and 2, who are working as Data Entry Operators and the petitioner No. 3, who is working as Assistant Librarian respectively, on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext.P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and pray not to terminate their service as a temporary hand, since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 30799 of 2016

The petitioners, who are working as Assistant Linemen on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and pray not to terminate their service as a temporary hand, since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 30800 of 2016

The petitioners 1 to 12, who are working as Helper on temporary basis, and petitioners 13 to 15, who are working as plumbers on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and pray not to terminate their service as a temporary hand since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 31085 of 2016

The petitioners 1 and 2, who are working as LDC and Hospital Attender respectively on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P3 order passed by the second respondent causing to terminate them from the service and pray not to terminate their service as a temporary hand since they have already been included in Ext. P2 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised and also seek for a direction to implement Ext. P4 proceedings dated 16.08.2016, the crux of which is to cause their service to be regularized.

W.P.(C) No. 31086 of 2016

The petitioners, who are working as Scavangers on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and pray not to terminate their service as a temporary hand since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 31411 of 2016

The petitioners, who are working as Scavangers on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and pray not to terminate their service as a temporary hand since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 31486 of 2016

The petitioners, who are working as Live Stock Inspectors on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and pray not to terminate their service as a temporary hand since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 31645 of 2016

The petitioners, who are working as Live Stock Inspectors on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and not to terminate their service as a temporary hand since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee, permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 31720 of 2016

The petitioners, who are working as Staff Nurse [1st petitioner], Junior Public Health Nurse [2nd petitioner] and Hospital Attendants [petitioners 3 to 7] on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and pray not to terminate their service as a temporary hand since they have already been included in Ext.P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 31722 of 2016

The petitioners, who are working as Scavengers on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and pray not to terminate their service as a temporary hand since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 32008 of 2016

The petitioner, who was appointed as LDC on temporary basis as per Ext. P1 order dated 22.07.2014 passed by the 3rd respondent, seeks to quash Ext. P3 order passed by the said respondent and not to terminate her from service as her name is included in Ext. P2 enabling her service to be regularized.

W.P.(C) No. 34054 of 2016

The petitioners, who are working as Vilakkuthuda on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and pray not to terminate their service as temporary hands, since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

W.P.(C) No. 30801 of 2016

The petitioners, who are working as LDC on temporary basis, seek to quash Ext. P2 order of the Administrator causing to terminate them from the service, and pray not to terminate their service as temporary hands, since they have already been included in Ext. P1 order passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee permitting them to continue in service with intent to have their service regularised.

We have already held that regularisation ordered by the Apex Court granting benefit of Paragraph 53 in Umadevis case is only in respect of the persons having completed 10 years of service as on that day, that too, as a one time measure. As it stands so, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the resolution taken by the Board to regularise the temporary employees having just two years service, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. In the said circumstances, the claim is repelled and the above Writ Petitions stand dismissed accordingly.

52. W.P.(C) No. 9085 of 2015

The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash Ext. P3 resolution No. 299 dated 25.08.2014 and the attempt to regularise temporary employees on the strength of the said resolution, simultaneously causing vacancies to be notified for conducting fresh selection in accordance with law. We have already found that Ext. P3 resolution is not correct or sustainable being contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court and accordingly, we have set aside the same. We have also directed the Devaswom to report substantive vacancies/regular vacancies for fresh selection in accordance with law. As such no separate order is required to be passed. Writ Petition stands allowed to the said extent.

53. W.P.(C) No. 14871 of 2012

Prayer is to permit the petitioner to continue in service as temporary hand till regular hand reports for duty and not to replace the existing temporary employees by another set of temporary employees. We have already declared the legal position and the further course of action to be pursued; pointing out the necessity to identify and fill up the regular vacancies/all substantive vacancies, after proper notification with wide publicity, enabling all eligible hands to participate in the process selection. No other order is required to be passed in the instant case. It is disposed of accordingly.

54. W.P.(C) No. 15060 of 2012

The main challenge is against Exts. P13 and P18 in so far as they relate to appointment of Ayahs in the Guruvayoor Devaswom English Medium School and to appoint the petitioners against the posts in question and also to regularize their service. Regularization of temporary hands is not possible in view of the finding already rendered by this Court. The regular vacancies/substantive vacancies have to be notified with wide publicity and they are to be filled up in accordance with the law. The appointment of the respondents 6 and 7 stands set aside and the vacancies resulted shall be filled up by the petitioners herein, if any temporary engagement is necessary as a stop-gap arrangement, till the vacancies are filled up by the regular hands. Writ Petition is allowed in part; to the said extent.

55. W.P.(C) No. 21998 of 2012

The Writ Petitioner challenges Exts. P2 and P3 notifications for the post of typist on temporary/contract basis. There is a prayer for regularization of service of the petitioners as well; besides a contention that his service as temporary hand shall not be replaced by another temporary hand. In view of the declaration already made by this Court, with reference to the law declared by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Umadevis case [cited supra], this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in the grounds raised and the relief sought for. Interference is declined. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.

56. W.P.(C) No. 32574 of 2014

The petitioner [in this lead case] has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P3 resolution No. 299 dated 25.08.2014 and to declare that attempt on the part of the respondents to regularize the temporary employees now working under different categories of the Devaswom is arbitrary. There is also a further prayer to set aside Ext. P5 Resolution bearing No. 60 dated 15.05.2015. Another prayer is there, whereby the petitioner has sought to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to notify the vacancies existing in all categories of posts under the Guruvayoor Devaswom and to conduct a fresh selection process by giving opportunity to all eligible candidates and fill up the vacancies accordingly. As per the discussions already made, we have held that Exts. P3 and P5 are not liable to be sustained, being arbitrary and illegal in all respects. Accordingly, we set aside Exts. P3 and P5, which cannot be applied or made the basis for regularizing the service of anybody under the Devaswom. We have also held all regular/substantive vacancies shall be identified and reported to the competent authority to conduct selection on the basis of the relevant rules and in accordance with law. In the said circumstances, we grant the relief at prayer No. 3 as well. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. However, cost will be borne by the parties.

57. Before parting with the case, it has to be noted that serious dispute has raised from the part of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee as to the field of recruitment to be left within the purview of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, who has been impleaded as the additional 5th respondent in W.P. (C) No. 30801 of 2016 [as per order dated 21..03.2017 in I.A. No. 4875 of 2017]. It is stated by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee in their counter affidavit that the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board was brought in existence as per the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, which was brought into force on 01.03.2014, and the Board, in fact, was constituted only much later on 14.08.2015. This being the position, it is stated that the Recruitment Board cannot have any say with regard to the steps for regularization of temporary hands sought to be pursued by the Managing Committee prior to 14.08.2015 and as such, the resolutions taken by the Guruvayoor Devawom Managing Committee in respect of Service of the temporary hands prior to 14.08.2015 have to be given effect to. It is however stated in paragraph 10 of the said affidavit dated 01.04.2017, that the Guruvayoor Devaswom would report the vacancies that arose after 01.04.2015 and that the Board can start the selection process accordingly. It is also pointed that the Guruvayoor Devaswom was not a party in DBP 79 of 2014 or DBP 60 of 2015, whereby direction was given by this Court to fill up the vacancies on war footing, through the Devaswom Recruitment Board, as per the order dated 06.07.2015.

58. The version of the additional respondent/Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board, as projected in their statement dated 27.03.2017 is that the Guruvayoor Devaswom Management Committee had entrusted the selection and appointment to the posts, except Melsanthi, Sopanam Kaval, Kshethram Koyma, Security Officer, to the Kerala Public Service Commissioner as per Annexure R5(a) decision dated 10.02.2014. But they have not conducted any regular process of selection, but for effecting temporary appointments without proper notification and publicity and without following proper selection process to different categories of posts, followed by subsequent regularization. It is also pointed out that regularization of temporary hands as a one time measure pursuant to the dictum in Umadevis case [cited supra] was effected by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Management Committee as per the resolution dated 25.11.2010 in respect of service of temporary employees having completed 10 years as on 25.11.2010, as a one time measure and that the same was implemented as per Annexure R5(b) order passed by the Administrator. Despite the fact that it was to be done as a one time measure, similar exercises were being pursued by the Guruvayoor Devaswom, causing regularization of temporary hands as and when the temporary hands completed 10 years of service as evident from Annexure R5(c) decision dated 02.07.2012. Similar exercise in respect of appointment of Scanvangers was pursued as per Annexure R5 (e) decision dated 14.06.2013. The Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing committee proceeded with further steps for regularization of temporary hands on several other dates as well, as evident from Annexure R5(f) order dated 11.06.2014 issued by the Administrator. This was followed by the subsequent decision for effecting such regularization of all the temporary employees stating some lame excuse as borne by Annexure R5 (h) decision dated 25.08.2014 of the Managing Committee and Annexure R5(i) decision dated 02.08.2014 of the very same Committee. The further steps taken by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee to regularize various temporary hands is discernible from Annexure R5(j) dated 15.05.2015 as well.

59. Admittedly, regularization is not a mode of appointment and such practice has been deprecated by the Apex Court on many an an occasion. In so far as the field of recruitment is governed by statutory rules, no such regularization is permissible or possible in contravention of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Section 9 (1) of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act 2015 [produced as Annexue R5 (g) in W.P.(C) No. 30801 of 2016] reads as follows :

"9. Functions of the Board : (1) The Board shall have the following functions, namely:-

(i) notwithstanding anything contained in any other existing Act or Rules or Regulations or orders or judgment or decree in respect of the appointment of candidates to the posts in Devaswom Board, the Board shall prepare select list for the appointment of candidates to various posts other than the hereditary posts and posts in the aided educational institutions in the Devaswom Boards as per the provisions of this Act, Rules and Regulations;

(ii) to invite applications, to conduct written examination or interview or written examination and interview and to prepare select list for selection to the various posts other than the hereditary posts under the Devaswom Board, as may be prescribed, as and when the requisition for such examination is received from the concerned Devaswom Board.

(iii) to make all required arrangements in connection with the examination including the preparation of question papers, supervision of examinations and valuation, conduct of interview and preparation of the select list;

(iv) to conduct any other examination relating to Devaswom Board as entrusted by the Government;

(v) to call for and obtain details regarding the examination from the concerned Devaswom Board.

(2) The Board shall be responsible for the proper conduct of the examination, to maintain the secrecy in the preparation of question paper, valuation, preparation of the list of candidates to be interviewed and preparation of the final select list to be furnished to the Devaswom Board and other connected matters and for the safe custody of the records pertaining to the examinations.

(3) (i) The Board shall conduct written examination to the candidate who had submitted applications and prepare lists, after conducting interview or written examination and interview;

(ii) Examination may be conducted for any Devaswom Board or for all the Devaswom Boards in suitable manner for the said purpose.

(iii) An applicant, who applies for more than one post or to more than one Devaswom Boards, shall not be denied the right to appear in more than one examination.

Provided that, if the candidate applies for examinations to various posts being conducted by the Board and in the circumstance of conducting examinations to more than one post by the Board on the same day the right referred in 3 (iii) shall not be available to such candidate.

(4) The procedure to be followed by the Board, in respect of the invitation of applications, conduct of written examination, preparation of list of candidates to be interviewed, conduct of interview and preparation of the select list to various posts in the Devaswom Board, shall be such as may be prescribed.

(5) The Board may issue general directions to the Devaswom Boards incidental to the functions of the Board and as are necessary for the conduct of the examinations.

(6) It shall be the duty of the Board to furnish the select list to the Devaswom Board and advise to the candidates prepared in the manner as may be prescribed."

60. From the above, it is quite clear that there is a non obstante clause in the said provision and as such, whatever may be the contents of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act or Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Recruitment Act of Regulations; after commencement of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act 2015, recruitment to various Devaswoms in Kerala can be effected only through the machinery under the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Act 2015. This is more so, since the Guruvayoor Devaswom is also one of the Devaswoms, who comes under Section 2 (b) of the the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act 2015, which defines the term Devaswom. That apart, as per Section 9 (6) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Board Recruitment Act, it shall be the duty of the Recruitment Board to furnish select list to the Devaswom Board and advise candidates prepared from the list in the manner as may be prescribed. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the regular recruitment has to be made by the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board and no exception can be drawn by the Guruvayoor Devaswom.

61. As mentioned already, the only possible instance of regularization pursuant to the verdict rendered by the Umadevis case [cited supra] could have been the regularization of the service of the persons having completed 10 years, as a one time measure, which has been effected by the Devaswom as per the resolution dated 25.11.2010. Having effected that, it was not open for the Guruvayoor Devaswom Management Committee to have pursued further regularization of temporary hands as and when they completed 10 years of service and such persons who have been regularized in service after the decision taken on 25.11.2010. Since such persons, who have completed 10 years of service after 25.11.2010 are not in the party array and their regularization is not under challenge; this Court does not intend to mention anything further in this regard, but for declaring that no further regularization exercise shall be done in respect of any temporary hands, without causing all the regular vacancies/substantive vacancies to be notified to the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board to conduct selection and advise candidates based on the qualification stipulated to the posts in question.

62. At the same time, it has to be noted that, because of the illegal exercise that was being pursued by the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee by engaging temporary hands and continuing them for quite long without resorting to regular recruitment, the persons who came to be appointed so might have crossed the upper age limit. In the said circumstances, while notifying the posts for regular appointment, it is possible for the Guruvayoor Devaswom to provide for age relaxation to such extent the above temporary hands have been working under the Guruvayoor Devaswom Management Committee and also provide some weight-age for the service already rendered by them, for example; one mark for one year of completed service, subject to a maximum of 10 marks and to assess the eligibility and suitability accordingly, along with such other requirements and subject to satisfaction of the other qualifications/requirements.