JUDGMENT : The petitioners who are members of Chettoor Illom having Karanma right to perform Santhi service in Kandiyoor Mahadeva Temple, are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in filling up the 3 vacancies of Santhis, which arose on sanctioning of 3 additional posts in the year 2004. 2. On the basis of the directions of this court in its order dated 2.7.1983 in DBA-51/02, 52/02, 76/02, 108/02, 27/03 and CMP No.4945/01, the Travancore Devaswom Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), sanctioned three additional posts of Santhi, as per Ext.P1 order dated 17.2.2004. The claim of the petitioners is against two of the three sanctioned posts. Immediately on sanctioning of the additional posts, the Board took steps to fill up the vacancies of Santhi by outsiders without considering the Karanma right holders. The members of the families of the petitioners approached this court filing WP(C) No.7452 of 2004 and by Ext.P2 judgment dated 10.6.2004 this court found that the families to which the petitioners belong were karanma families having right to perform the services of Santhi in Kandiyur Mahadeva Temple and hence no outsiders can be appointed against those posts. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Division Bench of this court held that so long as the persons having karanma right are available, they should be appointed. There was a further direction that respondent Board should ascertain whether there are persons who belong to the petitioners' families, who will be able to discharge duties for the three posts and in case there are eligible persons in those families they should be appointed and otherwise Board can appoint any other person. In Ext.P3 order also, while disposing of R.P.No.461 of 2004, the Division Bench of this court reiterated that appointments would be done in terms of the directions in Ext.P1 judgment. The Board had taken up the matter before the Apex Court and as per Ext.P4 order, Civil Appeal No.6513 of 2004 filed against Ext.P2 judgment was dismissed. The petitioners/members of their families have been approaching the respondents requesting for appointing them against the additional posts sanctioned, then, submitting representations Exts.P5, P6 and P9 in which they intimated their eligibility, qualifications as well as willingness. They have also produced Ext.P9 legal opinion. 3. The respondent Board had filed statement stating that there are other Illoms who are having karanma rights apart from the petitioners. They have also produced Ext.P9 legal opinion. 3. The respondent Board had filed statement stating that there are other Illoms who are having karanma rights apart from the petitioners. It is their case that it is for the Board to decide when it has to make appointments against the posts. It is also stated that as at present there are two Santhis working in the Temple and work can be managed with the existing two Santhis. According to them, the petitioners cannot raise any claim for filling up the vacancies, merely because the Board sanctioned three additional posts. 4. The petitioners filed a reply affidavit producing the counter affidavit filed by the Board in WP(C) No.7452 of 2004, in which the Board explained the acute necessity for additional Santhis. In this counter affidavit, the Board stated that sanctioning of additional posts was extremely necessary in view of the increase in income of the Temple and the number of devotees visiting the Temple, the offerings to be performed etc. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the counter affidavit is relevant in this context which reads as follows: 1. It is submitted that Major Kandiyoor Mahadeva Temple in Mavelikkara group is a very important temple under the administration of the Travancore Devaswam Board. Besides the main shrine, there are 15 sub (upadevans) shrines in the Devaswam. Besides the usual poojas, the following vashipadus are conducted at Kandiyoor Devaswam viz, Ganapathy Homam, Pithrupooja, Thilaka Homam, Navagraha Pooja, Mruthyunjaya Homam, Karuka Homam, Uma Maheswara Pooja, Sahasranama Archana, Mruthunjaya Archana, Swayamvara Archana, Shathrusamhara Archana, Rudrasooktha Archana, Sankabishekam, Mruthunjaya Pushpanjaii. Ashtabhishekam, Jaladhara etc. At present there are only two Shanthikaars for the main shrine and one Shanthikaars for Chuttambalam. Complaints are galore that there is inordinate delay in conducting the Vashipadus, preparation of Nivedyams and supply of Prasadams. The two Shanthikkars attending the main shrine find it extremely difficult to conduct the poojas, rituals and vazhipadus on time and to distribute Prasadam to devotees. 2 This Honble Court by its Order (feted 2-7-2003 in DBA No. 51/2002, 52 2002, 58/2002, 76/2002, 108/2002, 27/2003, and in CMP No. 4945 2001 approved the guidelines for appointment of temple staff by the Travancore Devaswam Board and permitted the creation of various posts and to make appointments thereto. 2 This Honble Court by its Order (feted 2-7-2003 in DBA No. 51/2002, 52 2002, 58/2002, 76/2002, 108/2002, 27/2003, and in CMP No. 4945 2001 approved the guidelines for appointment of temple staff by the Travancore Devaswam Board and permitted the creation of various posts and to make appointments thereto. Pursuant to the said Order, the Travancore Devaswam Board appointed three Shanthikkars to the Kandiyoor Devaswam to cope up with the increasing workload in the temple and also with a view to reduce the burden of the existing Shanthikkars, besides ameliorating difficulties experienced1^ devotees. During the recent years there is a spurt in the number of devotees visiting the temple and the revenue which was Rs. 8,48,000/- in 2000 has gone up to Rs. 14,00,000. - in 2004, A true copy of the statement of comparative income for the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 is produced herewith and marked for identification as Exhibit RI. The unprecedented growth of income reflects the increase in number of devotees visiting the temple and the resultant increase in vazhipadus/offerings etc, by the devotees. A duty is cast upon the Travancore Devaswom Board to ensure that the devotees conveniently get their vazhipadus and offering made without any difficulty. The appointments of three Shanthikkars were made to meet the ever-increasing demand of the devotees. 5. In the year 2004 the income was stated to be more than sufficient for sanctioning of three new posts and appointment of new Santhis were found extremely emergent and unavoidable. But when the directions in Ext.P2 were to fill up the posts from among the karanma holders, the Board challenged the same before the apex court, pointing out the very same emergency. They turned volt face only when appointment from open market was found impossible in view of the judgments adverse to them. 6. It is pertinent to note that the Board did not choose to file any counter affidavit in this case. What is filed is a statement by the Standing Counsel. 7. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. Having considered the pleadings as well as the contentions raised, it is seen that the Board was very much eager to get the three additional posts sanctioned pointing out the emergent requirement in view of the rising number of devotees and consequential demand for offerings. 8. Having considered the pleadings as well as the contentions raised, it is seen that the Board was very much eager to get the three additional posts sanctioned pointing out the emergent requirement in view of the rising number of devotees and consequential demand for offerings. This court had directed creation of the posts, on being convinced of the genuineness in their requests. The emergent requirement for the posts and personnels to man the posts continued even when they approached the apex court and at least till the dismissal of their appeal against Ext.P2 judgment, by the apex court. But when they were unable to implement the decision to fill up the vacancies resorting to direct recruitment from open market, by way of Exts.P2, P3 and P4 judgments, they wanted to avoid the appointment of persons like petitioners who had karanma right, against the additional posts sanctioned as early as in 2004 that too created on the basis of direction from this court. 9. The respondents who did not choose to file any counter affidavit in this case now wants to avoid the karanma holders saying that the existing two Santhis are sufficient, that too by way of a statement of the Standing Counsel. Ext.P10 counter affidavit filed in WP(C) No.7452 of 2004 produced in the reply affidavit of the petitioners would show that there is absolutely no bonafides in the said statement or the present stand of the respondents. However they do not have a case that there is any diminution in either the number of devotees or the offerings. In order to avoid any such statements on record, the Board has conveniently chosen not to file a counter affidavit and stated that it is for the Board to decide when appointments are to be made. The respondents do not have a case that the number of devotees to the Temple or offerings to it got reduced. Going by the present trend in the State no reasonable person can even imagine such a situation, when the number of devotees are on the rise day by day to any temple. Thus it is crystal clear that the action of the respondents in keeping the posts in the cold storage all these years since 2004 is to effectuate their malafide intention to deny appointment to the karanama holders who are the only legitimate claimants. Thus it is crystal clear that the action of the respondents in keeping the posts in the cold storage all these years since 2004 is to effectuate their malafide intention to deny appointment to the karanama holders who are the only legitimate claimants. The respondents have thus unlawfully deprived them of their right to livelihood all these years right from 2004 unreasonably. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners pressed for payment of costs and though I find that it is a fit case where cost is to be awarded, I refrain from doing so. 10. In the above circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondents to see that appointments are made to the 3 additional posts of Santhis sanctioned as per Ext.P1 order within a period of two months and to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for the same in tune with the directions of this court in Ext.P2 judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.