JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. All these matters relate essentially to the appointment of five persons as Assistant Engineers in the service of the Cochin Devaswom Board [hereinafter referred to as 'CDB' for short]. In its crux, the allegations are that these appointments are done illegally, if not irregularly, and that they ought to set aside by this Court on various grounds, including violation of statutory Rules applicable to such appointment. 2. The key facts involved in this case is as under: The five persons in question, namely those who have been appointed as Assistant Engineers in the service of the CDB, were initially appointed on contract basis for a period of one year. Their order of appointment is on record as Annexure A4 in DBA No. 112 of 2010. 3. Among the above cases, Writ Petition No. 8138 of 2006 has been filed by a certain Mr. Nitheesh M.K., who claimed promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and, therefore, impugned the direct recruitment of the 5 persons as Assistant Engineers. 4. As regards W.P. (C) No. 3978 of 2008 is concerned, it has been filed by an association who claims to be a non-Governmental organization registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. They have placed on record their registration certificate as Ext. P1. In its essence, their allegations are that the five persons, who are appointed as Assistant Engineers in the service of the CDB, were appointed in contravention and violation of the statutory Regulations and that their appointment is consequentially illegal and not merely irregular. The petitioner therein, therefore, prays that all such appointments be set aside and that the order impugned therein, namely Ext. P7, regularizing the service of these five persons be set aside and for a further declaration that all appointments be made, in the service of the CDB, only through the Public Service Commission in terms of Section 127A of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Act. 5. Coming to the DBAR No. 4 of 2010, this proceedings is based on an audit objection raised by the State Audit Department, wherein the appointment of these five persons as Assistant Engineer and the appointment of 24 other persons as Lower Division Clerks and Revenue Inspectors have been called into question. 5. Coming to the DBAR No. 4 of 2010, this proceedings is based on an audit objection raised by the State Audit Department, wherein the appointment of these five persons as Assistant Engineer and the appointment of 24 other persons as Lower Division Clerks and Revenue Inspectors have been called into question. The audit objections are to the effect that new posts have been created and appointments made without proper study of the volume of work; without observing the Recruitment Rules and in non-compliance of the directions of this Court, eventhough the financial condition of the Board is “really pathetic”. The audit report says that the accounts of the CDB for the year 2008-'09 shows a deficit of Rs.36 lakhs and that they have availed a bank loan of Rs.60 lakhs against their fixed deposit in a particular bank merely for the purpose of payment of salary to its employees for the month of September, 2009. 6. Finally, coming to DBA No. 112 of 2010, this has been filed by the CDB, seeking approval for the appointment of the five persons as Assistant Engineers, on the ground that the volume of the work in the CDB justifies such appointment. 7. We have heard Smt. S. Karthika, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8138 of 2006; Sri. M.P. Asok Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 3978 of 2008; Sri. K. P. Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the Cochin Devaswom Board; Sri. P. Ramachandran, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the learned Ombudsman and Sri. T. K. Ananthakrishnan, the learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 8. We propose to consider all these matters together and deliver a judgment in common, because our view in one will obviously impact an influence the course and the direction of the others. Since the issues relate essentially to the appointment of five persons as Assistant Engineers in the service of CDB and since the core of the issues revolve around the allegation that the CDB did not obtain the permission of this Court while making such appointments, leading to the objections to be raised by the State Audit Department, we deem it appropriate to consider DBAR No. 4 of 2010 as the lead case. We choose to do so particularly because if we find resolution to the audit objections raised in the said DBAR, it will go a long way in modulating our views with respect to the other cases, including the writ petitions, because if the audit objections are overruled then the appointment of these five persons and other objected appointments would get the imprimatur of law. The question is whether we would be justified in allowing the objections or in overruling the same, based on the materials available. 9. We notice from the records in DBAR No. 4 of 2010 that eventhough the audit objections were raised as early as on 15.03.2010, no response was placed on record by the CDB for a long period thereafter, thus compelling this Court to pass an order on 23.02.2012 directing them to file a detailed affidavit regarding the findings in the audit report. It is only when this Court passed such an order that the CDB thought it necessary to file an affidavit, which has been placed on record only in June 2012. 10. We have examined the said affidavit, dated 20.06.2012, wherein the Board has sought to explain the staff position, the work requirements with respect to various constructions and such other civil activities undertaken by them and they have then attempted to justify all the appointments that were objected to by the State Audit Department. The averments contained in the said affidavit state that the Board had reviewed the working of the “Maramath Wing” of the CDB as a whole in the light of another judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 9997 of 2007 and that they felt that a lot of civil construction activities, on account of various development Schemes, are still going on and are to be undertaken in the future, necessitating the requirement of full time Assistant Engineers. They have detailed several items of works under execution and to be undertaken by the Maramath wing and in particular they say that there are 401 temples under the CDB which require constant civil works for its renovation and upkeep; that they are constructing two major shopping complexes in western and eastern Pallithamam; that they are renovating the Sree Poornathrayeesa temple at Thripunithura; that they are in the process of executing works for the purpose of water supply augmentation; that proposal for construction of guest houses in various temples are being finalized and such other specified works. In short, their affidavit goes to say that all these works would require the full time assistance of Engineers and therefore, that the appointment of these five persons was, therefore necessitated on account of these exigencies. 11. Before we take a decision as to the acceptability or otherwise of the objections in the State Audit Report, we must also have a glance at the DBA filed by the Board, wherein they say that these five persons were appointed as Assistant Engineers on contract basis, based on an order of this Court in DBA No. 26 of 2004; a copy of which has been placed on record therein as Annexure AII, wherein this Court had granted permission to the CDB to create three posts of Assistant Engineers and two posts of Grade II Draftsman. They further assert that since the order of this Court in the DBA aforementioned was on 26.03.2004, they made a public notification calling for candidates for appointment to two posts of Assistant Engineers (civil) along with 1st Grade, 2nd Grade and 3rd Grade Overseers. A copy of the said notification has been placed on record as Annexure AIII in the DBA, which bears the date 21.05.2005. The averments in the DBA then goes to add that consequent to this notification, an interview of 42 candidates were conducted on 01.02.2005 and 02.02.2005 and that based on the marks secured by the various candidates, the five persons in question were appointed for a contract period of one year, w.e.f. the date on which they joined. 12. The averments in the DBA then goes to add that consequent to this notification, an interview of 42 candidates were conducted on 01.02.2005 and 02.02.2005 and that based on the marks secured by the various candidates, the five persons in question were appointed for a contract period of one year, w.e.f. the date on which they joined. 12. The pleadings on record in the DBA would show that after this period of one year, when their services were not extended, these Engineers approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 9997 of 2007 against their alleged termination and several interim orders were issued by this Court dated 13.04.2007, 20.04.2007, 20.08.2007 and 11.09.2007 against termination of their services. We also notice that the copy of the order, dated 13.04.2007, has been placed on record in the DBA as Annexure V, wherein the termination of these persons were interdicted by this Court for two months, which was extended by the subsequent orders. Finally, the record show that an order, dated 09.10.2007, was issued by this Court, which has been placed on record as Annexure VI, wherein the following directions were given : “Heard. The petitioners pray for extension of the interim order. By Ext. P2 order dated 14.03.2006, they have been appointed on temporary basis for a period of one year in connection with the construction of buildings under certain projects. On completion of the period of their appointment, contending that the works are yet to be completed, the petitioners approached this Court, seeking a direction to the Board to extend their engagement. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the Devaswom Board also. Having regard to the facts of the case, it is for the Devaswom Board to decide whether the services of the petitioners are required and this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot compel continued engagement of the petitioners, unless the Board requires their services. So the competent authority of the Devaswom Board is directed to take a decision, whether the services of the petitioners are required and if so, take a further decision concerning extension of their service. This, the competent authority shall do within two weeks from today. So the competent authority of the Devaswom Board is directed to take a decision, whether the services of the petitioners are required and if so, take a further decision concerning extension of their service. This, the competent authority shall do within two weeks from today. Since there are already interim orders in favour of the petitioners, the same will remain in force till the Board takes a decision as directed above.” We have extracted this order as above because many of the issues raised in these petitions, in fact, revolve on the interpretation to be given to this order. We will come to it presently. 13. After the afore-extracted order was issued by this Court, it appears that the CDB issued another order, dated 29.10.2007, extending the services of these five persons for a period of two months with a rider that their further extension will be considered only on the basis of their performance during this extended period. A copy of this order has not been placed in the DBA, but is available as Ext. P6 along with W.P.(C) No. 3978 of 2008. Even though their extension was limited for a period of two months, it transpires that by an order, dated 08.01.2008, which is stated to be based on a Board Resolution No. 3, dated 23.11.2007, the CDB appointed all the five persons in question to the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis, however, making it clear that all such appointments will be subject to approval of this Court. A copy of the said order is available in the DBP as Annexure A VII. Pertinently, in Annexure A VII, along with these five persons, the promotion of Sri. Nitheesh, the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 8138 of 2006 was also ordered. 14. We will deal with the case of Sri. Nitheesh now before moving forward because his appointment is also on account of the litigation that he had launched before this Court. 15. As we have already seen above, Sri. Nitheesh was working as Overseer Grade I in the services of the CDB and he claimed that he should be promoted as an Assistant Engineer in preference of these five persons, who were appointed directly since according to Sri. Nitheesh, the Rules relating to such appointments prohibit appointment of persons through direct recruitment, but only allows the filling up such posts through promotion. When Sri. Nitheesh, the Rules relating to such appointments prohibit appointment of persons through direct recruitment, but only allows the filling up such posts through promotion. When Sri. Nitheesh filed W.P.(C) No. 8138 of 2006, this Court passed an interim order, dated 17.03.2006, making it clear that the appointment of the five persons will be provisional and subject to the final orders in the Writ Petition. We may be justified in even suspecting that it is because of this order that the CDB was galvanized to consider the promotion of Sri. Nitheesh, which was finally ordered, as stated above, through Annexure A VII order in DBA No. 112 of 2010. 16. Thus as matters now stand, the five persons namely, who are respondents 2 to 6 in W.P.(C) Nos. 8138 of 2006 and respondents 3 to 7 3978 of 2008 were appointed initially on contract basis for a period of one year, extended by a period of two months after the term of initial one year and regularized in service through Annexure A VII order in DBA No. 112 of 2010. As seen above, Sri. Nitheesh, the writ petitioner in W.P(c) No. 8138 of 2006 was also promoted through the same order. 17. The writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 3978 of 2008 relies upon Rule 22 of the Rules for the Recruitment of Candidates for Appointments in the Regular Services of the Cochin Devaswom Board [hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short] to assert and contend that the appointment through direct recruitment to the posts other than L.D.C/L.D.A./D.A./L.D. Typist, Supervisor in Maramath Wing and last grade cadre is contrary to law. Sri. Asok Kumar, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3978 of 2008 submits that even though it is not specifically pleaded in the writ petition, all these five are directly or indirectly related to serving or past Chairman and Office bearers of the CDB and he brings our attention to the copy of the quick verification report made pursuant to the directions of the Vigilance Court in substantiation of this assertion. 18. 18. As far as W.P.(C) No. 8138 of 2006 is concerned, Smt. Karthika the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her client is not really interested to proceed against the five persons in question but that his intention was to ensure that he obtained his due promotion and that the appointment or otherwise of the five persons is otherwise not relevant to his cause. She submits that since her client has been appointed through Annexure A VII order in DBA No.112 of 2010 and since he has been assigned seniority as per his entitlement, pursuant to the subsequent order of this Court, namely Ext. R2(l) in W.P.(C) No. 8138 of 2006, her client is not desirous of having the appointment of the five persons set aside, though they were appointed prior to her client in violation of the Rules. 19. The learned standing counsel appearing for the CDB, Sri. K.P. Sudheer, referring to the additional counter affidavit, dated 07.04.2018, filed in DBA No. 112 of 2010, submits that the reasons for making the impugned appointments have been reiterated in the said affidavit and he says that the objections in the DBAR are also answered in this affidavit. One of the primary objections in the DBAR, he concedes, is that five persons appointed as Assistant Engineers did not have enough work to be assigned and that they were being used for the purpose of counting of collections in the “bhandaram”. In fact, this Court had noticed this objection specifically in the order dated 23.02.2012 and had directed the CDB to explain how the five persons were allowed to continue in service even though as per audit report, commercial projects of Kailasam and western Pallithanam complex had already been completed. The affidavit that Mr. Sudheer now refers to is, in fact, in response of this order and we see that the CDB has taken more than seven years in doing so. 20. Before we comment upon the legality or otherwise of the actions of the CDB, we are forced to observe, as a preliminary issue, that their conduct in these cases have been lacking in transparency and they have been dealing with it in a very cavalier and perfunctory manner. Their response to the various allegations have been apathetic and callous they seem to have taken this Court for granted throughout these proceedings. Their response to the various allegations have been apathetic and callous they seem to have taken this Court for granted throughout these proceedings. We are absolutely firm in our mind that such a lackadaisical conduct on the part of the CDB will have to visit them with the consequences that would be apposite, so to act as a deterrent in future and also to ensure that orders and procedures relating to such matters are never circumvented or violated by the concerned officials and officers in future. We also propose to caution them, in the manner that we will do as we proceed in this judgment, that any such attitude in future would visit them with consequences that will be commensurate to the gravity of such violations. 21. Coming back to the appointments of the five engineers, as we have already noticed above, they were appointed against vacancies that were allowed to be created by this Court in Annexure A II judgment in DBA No. 26 of 2004 [produced in DBA No. 112 of 2010]. Sri. Sudheer initially made an attempt to make an assertion that since this Court had permitted the creation and filling up of vacancies through this order, the appointment of the five engineers cannot be found to be in error. We are, however, of the certain opinion that this submission cannot find favour because, had it been the way the CDB had understood that order, there was no requirement for them to have filled up the vacancies for a one year term and they could have always adopted a procedure for appointment on a permanent basis with the prior approval of this Court. Not only did they not do so but they went ahead and made appointments on a contract basis and then regularised it through the impugned orders, without obtaining orders from this Court. What makes it more disturbing is that in DBA No.112 of 2010, they have averred that they did not deem it necessary to obtain the prior orders of this Court before making the permanent appointments on account of the interim order of this Court dated 09.10.2007; a copy which has been placed on record as Annexure VI in the said DBA. This is the order that has been extracted afore in paragraph 12 of this judgment. This is the order that has been extracted afore in paragraph 12 of this judgment. This is why we have earlier said that the interpretation of that order would become very relevant. 22. As is clear from the said order, all that this Court directed the Board was to see whether there was any requirement for the continuation of these five officers but nothing was stated in the said order regarding their appointment on a permanent basis. This order, we must say very painfully, has been misinterpreted by the CDB in their attempt to grant permanency to these Engineers and the stand of the CDB that they did not deem it necessary to obtain permission from this Court to do so on account of this order will have to be viewed with a great amount of pejoration. We are distressed that the CDB has acted in such fashion, with an unmistakable guile of having the irregular appointments ratified and then place the blame on the shoulders of this Court. We express our strongest disapproval of such attitude and words fail us in trying to express our disfavour in such circumstances. 23. That being clearly said, we are now enjoined to examine if the appointments deserve to be set aside or otherwise. The affidavits on record, namely, the affidavit in DBAR No. 4 of 2010 dated 20.12.2012 and the additional affidavit dated 07.04.2018 in DBA No. 112 of 2010 clearly list out the works that are now being engaged in by the CDB. There is no opposition from any of the parties in this case regarding the validity and accuracy of the averments in the affidavits and we, in fact, asked Sri. M.P. Asok Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3978 of 2008, whether his client would like to file pleadings in refutation of the averments in these affidavits. Sri. Asok Kumar replied to us with all sincerity at his command that his client was not interested in doing so and he suspected that it could be because of the reasons beyond his control. Even though we appreciate the stand taken by Sri. Sri. Asok Kumar replied to us with all sincerity at his command that his client was not interested in doing so and he suspected that it could be because of the reasons beyond his control. Even though we appreciate the stand taken by Sri. M.P. Asok Kumar at the Bar, the fact remains that in the absence of any material to contradict the averments in these affidavits, we can only consider the same ex-facie and conclude whether the reasons stated by the CDB would merit our indulgence in considering the continuation of these five engineers. 24. Even though we are strongly in disapproval of the manner in which these Engineers have been appointed, as we have already indicated in express words at supra, the fact remains that the affidavits on record would show that there is a certain requirement of five Engineers in CDB. As long as this remains uncontroverted, we have to take it that there is an uncontested requirement for Engineers in the service of the CDB and therefore, the only surviving question is whether the present incumbents deserve to be terminated and others appointed through the process of law. We have given an intent consideration of this issue and we are of the strong view that even though their appointments may have not been done in the manner stipulated in law, they cannot be construed to be illegal -in contradistinction to the concept of “irregular appointment” as is often postulated in service jurisprudence. 25. We are here guided by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karanataka and others Vs. Umadevi [ (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], wherein the lordships have said in paragraph 17 that the words irregular appointment connote a procedural irregularity and regularization is meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to the methodology followed in making the appointments. The pleadings on record in all these cases do not tell us that any of these Engineers are unqualified or unsuitable for being appointed as Assistant Engineers. Even the orders appointing them would show that they faced a process of selection through an interview and that they were appointed only after assessing more than 37 others. The pleadings on record in all these cases do not tell us that any of these Engineers are unqualified or unsuitable for being appointed as Assistant Engineers. Even the orders appointing them would show that they faced a process of selection through an interview and that they were appointed only after assessing more than 37 others. It is now well settled that an interview is also a valid process for the purpose of selection and in that sense of the matter, we are of view that the appointments of these Engineers can be termed as being only irregular not really illegal. Add to this is the fact that these Engineers have been continuing in service for the last more than 12 years uninterruptedly and no issues or concerns or complaints have been raised against them over their performance from any corner until now. 26. For such reasons but certainly not on grounds of sympathy or indulgence, we are of the view that it would not be necessary to disturb their appointment at this point of time and to allow their continuance in service. While doing so, we are not oblivious to the allegations made by Sri. M.P. Asok Kumar that all these persons are related directly or indirectly to the present and past Chairpersons and officer bearers of the CDB. However we find that this issue has been controverted in the affidavit filed by the CDB dated 10.04.2018 wherein they state as under : “12...................Out of the five selected candidates, M.K. Dileep is the nephew of the then President of Cochin Devaswom Board, Sri. M. A. Krishnanunni. Even though the five Assistant Engineers were selected at the time when M.A. Krishnanunni was the President of Cochin Devaswom Board, the Government of Kerala dissolved Cochin Devaswom and administrative control was entrusted with the Special Devaswom Commissioner. Whereas at the time of regularizing his appointment as per order marked as Annexue A VII, a new Board was constituted and Sri. T. G. Reveendrannathan @ T.G. Ravi was the President of the Board. Further allegation is that another Assistant Engineer namely T. P. Krishnanunni was working as Project Engineer for Paramekkavu Devaswom and at the time when the selection of Assistant Engineer was made the Sri. K.K. Menon who was former President of Paramekkavu Devaswom was a member of the Cochin Devaswom Board. Further allegation is that another Assistant Engineer namely T. P. Krishnanunni was working as Project Engineer for Paramekkavu Devaswom and at the time when the selection of Assistant Engineer was made the Sri. K.K. Menon who was former President of Paramekkavu Devaswom was a member of the Cochin Devaswom Board. For this case also regularizing was done by successive board in which T.G. Raveendranath was President.............................”. Since these averments also remain uncontroverted and because nothing has been placed before us to show that these are not to be accepted as true, we deem it apposite to leave it there and to answer the contentions of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3978 of 2008 as being unsubstantiated. 27. Now the question comes as to what is the nature of the orders that we need to issue herein to serve as deterrent to the CDB or any other Devaswom Boards in future in even contemplating such irregular appointments. We are certain in our mind that we cannot take such action of the Board lying down or to treat it lightly, since any such indulgence from our part at this time would be used as a licence for the Boards at present and in future to indulge in such activities with perceived impunity. We cannot allow this and we are convinced that the time is now overdue to caution them against any such misadventures in future. We are of the considered opinion that an exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/-[Rupees Fifty thousand only] will have to be mulcted upon the CDB , however, with liberty to them to recover it from the members of the Board that had made these irregular appointments in the year 2008. 28. In the result: (a) we drop the objection of the Local Fund Audit Department [now called State Audit Department] and close the DBAR No. 4 of 2010 accordingly. (b) DBA No. 112 of 2010 is allowed, granting the permission sought for by the CDB for the appointment of the five persons mentioned in Annexure A VII therein. (c) W.P.(C) No. 8138 of 2006 is closed, recording that the petitioner had already been promoted and assigned his due seniority, since we are of the view that no further orders are required therein. Consequentially, all interim orders in the said writ petition will stand vacated. (c) W.P.(C) No. 8138 of 2006 is closed, recording that the petitioner had already been promoted and assigned his due seniority, since we are of the view that no further orders are required therein. Consequentially, all interim orders in the said writ petition will stand vacated. (d) W.P. (C) No. 3978 of 2008 is dismissed, however, recording appreciation for the effort of the petitioner and that of his learned counsel Sri. M.P. Asok kumar in bringing the very decisive issues involved to the attention of this Court. 29. The CDB is directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-[Rupees Fifty thousand only] that we fix as exemplary costs, within one month to the Kerala Mediation and Conciliation Centre and to produce the receipt, indicating payment of the same, before the Registrar General of this Court. We clarify that the CDB will at liberty to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/-deposited by them as costs, from the members of the Board who had adopted the resolution leading to the issuance of Annexure A VII order, in terms of law and by following due procedure for such purpose. Such recovery shall be made by them after remitting the costs to the Kerala Mediation and Conciliation Centre as ordered herein. These cases are thus disposed of.