1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

                  i. Call for records leading to issuance of Exhibit P5 Order dated 16/12/2025 from the 2nd respondent and quash Exhibit P5 Order, by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction;

                  ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose Exhibit P6 Application/Appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard the petitioner, within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been working as full time Santhi in Travancore Devaswom Board from 2002 onwards. He was posted as the Santhi of Vettakkorumakan Devaswom Temple in the General Transfer of the year 2025.

4. The petitioner states that, Ext.P5 transfer order was issued by the Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, whereby the petitioner was transferred to the Aranmula Group. It is submitted that Ext.P5 order was issued while Ext.P3 order was subsisting. As per Ext.P3 order, the petitioner, Jayaprakash, was transferred to Kamalathichapuram Devaswom in Manakkad Sub Group.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Ext.P3 transfer order was issued on 17.09.2025 and Ex.P5 transfer order on 16.12.2025. Two transfer orders issued within a short span of three months is arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in Exts.P1 and P2 notices are false and fabricated. It is pointed out that the petitioner is a cancer patient and that one of his kidneys was removed. Moreover, he is a diabetic patient. In order to substantiate his contention, he has produced Exts. P7 to P10 medical records.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 23.09.2025 before the Board, detailing his medical condition and refuting the allegations.

8. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P5 order, whereby the petitioner was transferred to Aranmula Group. Challenging Ext.P5 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 application/appeal to the 1st respondent Board.

9. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave and serious. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner to a temple in another sub group is imperative.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is the Santhi of the temple and not the custodian of the account books of the temple. He is not responsible for the missing of the pages therein. It is pointed out that, in the absence of Devaswom staff, the petitioner used to issue receipts to the devotees for the smooth functioning of the temple.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has never acted against the interest of the temple.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied with an order directing the 1st respondent Board to consider the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

13. In view of the submissions made in the Court, perusal of pleadings and materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent Board to consider and pass appropriate order in Ext.P6 appeal at the earliest, within the outer limit of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment.

14. It is made clear that all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P5 transfer order shall be kept in abeyance until the Board takes a decision in the appeal.

                  This writ petition is disposed of as above.