Back
2015 Supreme(Ker) 1230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Sankaranarayana Prasad – Appellant
Vs.
Malabar Devaswom Board – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 17976 of 2015
Decided On : 03-11-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :M. Ramesh Chander, Sr. Advocate, Aneesh Joseph andDennis Varghese
For the Respondents: K.R. Sunil, Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, S. Unnikrishnan andV.R. Kesava Kaimal
Headnote:
Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 - Section 100(2)(y) - Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Rules, 1951 - Part I Rule 4(2) - Notification - Appointment - Whether the temple authorities can decide minimum and maximum age for fresh appointments - Held, Reading of Rule 4(2) of Part I of Section 100(2)(y) would only indicate that none, who is below 18 and above 60, can be appointed as an employee of temple; unless he/she is a hereditary officer or servant - It does not necessarily follow from the rule that in issuing a notification for fresh appointment, the age specified would have to be between 18-65 - Temple authorities would have the power to decide on minimum and maximum age for such fresh appointment which shall not be less than or exceed that provided in the sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Rules - It would also be absurd to give such an interpretation to the above provision since, no fresh appointment could be made of a person having 59 years of age
K. Vinod Chandran, J.
1. The petitioner was an applicant to the post of Santhikaran in the Pallikkunnu Sree Mookambika Temple. Admittedly, the Santhi of the said temple is alternated between hereditary Santhi and the non-hereditary Santhikaran; each holding charge for two months. A notification is said to have been issued calling for qualified and experienced 'Santhikaran' produced at Ext. R5(c), dated 01.07.2014. The controversy arose allegedly due to the prescription of age in Ext. R5(c) between 35-50; as on 01.01.2014. The petitioner was called for the interview as per Ext. P1. Four persons are stated to have been interviewed by the interview board constituted by the Assistant Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board, the 3rd respondent herein. The members of the interview board were the Inspector Gr. 1 of the Thalassery Division of the Board, the Thanthri of the temple, the Chairman of the Trustee Board and the Executive Officer of the temple. The 1st rank holder is said to have relinquished his claim as per Ext. P2.
2. The petitioner aggrieved by the fact that no appointment order has been issued to him, despite he being the 2nd in the rank list, approached this Court by W.P.(C) No. 11376 of 2015, wherein, there was an interim order passed, not to appoint any other person lower in the rank list, to the petitioner, in the temple. The petitioner was also issued with an order dated 28.04.2015 at Ext. P5 permitting him to join as on 01.07.2015, in compliance with the interim order. However it is to be stated that the Trustee Board had filed an application to vacate the interim order.
3. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, the 3rd respondent herein issued a communication at Ext. P6, to the Executive Officer of the temple, canceling the selection as such for reason of the age limit having not been specified as available in the Rules. Ext. P6 communication reveals that as per the Rules under S. 100(2)(y), of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Rules (for brevity, 'the Rules'), the age for appointment of employees to the Board is between 18-65. In accordance with which the Commissioner is said to have issued a Circular, which is also produced at Ext. P7.
4. Faced with Ext. P6 communication, which in effect cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner withdrew the earlier Writ Petition, and filed the present Writ Petition. Ext. P8 was also issued canceling the appointment to the petitioner on the basis of the Assistant Commissioner's letter. The petitioner hence was before this Court contending that he is the 2nd person in the rank list and he ought to be granted appointment, as the 1st rank holder has specifically relinquished his claim.
5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board, the learned counsel for the Chairman of the Trustee Board and the incumbent Executive Officer; as also the Executive Officer, who was holding charge at the time of the interview, who issued Ext. P5, and was impleaded as the additional 6th respondent.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the Trustee Board submits that though the interview was conducted, the report of the proceedings were not forwarded to the Trustee Board, who has to make the appointment as per S. 48 of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The issuance of Ext. P5 is doubted on the ground that what is available in the records, substantially differs from what is produced in the Writ Petition. It is also submitted that there was no rank list prepared and hence the Writ Petition itself is premature.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the additional 6th respondent asserts that he had issued Ext. P5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board produces the carbon copy available in the files of the Trustee Board to contend that there is some manipulation with respect to the document produced as Ext. P5. On a cross verification of the carbon copy
