DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The post of “Melshanthi” of the famed Sabarimala Temple is perhaps the most coveted of such positions in any other temple and it, therefore, is the ultimate grace aspired and sought for by every priest each year.

2. The process of selection to this post is ardous, with the final approval obtained from the divine providence itself, since the most qualified of all candidates is, at the end, chosen by draw of lots in front of the Sanctum, under the benign watch of the deity.

3. An aspirant to this post for the year has, in this Writ Petition, called into question the validity of a particular eligibility criterion, fixed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (hereinafter 'TDB' for brevity), for candidates applying for this.

4. The petitioner is one among the many who have applied to take part in the selection process leading to the appointment of 'Melsanthi' at the Sabarimala temple. He alleges that, he is now incapacitated from taking part in the process because, as per the relevant notification issued by the TDB, a copy of which is appended to this writ petition as Ext.P1, only a 'Santhi'(Priest) who has had 12 years experience, out of which 10 years being spent continuously serving as a “Melsanthi” (Head Priest) of a Temple, would alone obtain eligibility for being selected as the “Melsanthi” of the Sabarimala temple; and he predicates that this stipulation mandating continuous ten years service as “Melshanthi” amounts to an illegal classification among the “Santhis”, since it has no rationale nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by such classification.

5. The petitioner further asserts that till 2016 there was no such pre-conditional stipulation in the notifications of the respective years and he has placed on record exhibits P9 & P10, being the notifications for the years 2013 and 2014, to substantiate this. The petitioner thus contends that Ext.P2 notification, to the extent to which it includes this allegedly exclusionary stipulation, amounts to a hostile discrimination and causes an illegal classification among “Santhis” and therefore, liable to be struck down by this Court.

6. We have heard Shri Manilal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Rajmohan, the learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board.

7. Even though the singular submissions of Shri Manilal, in challenge to the impugned condition in Ext.P2, is that it creates an unreasonable classification among the “Santhis; thereby discriminating many of them vis-a-vis those who are now in the field of choice; we are of the certain view that what is sought to be done through Ext.P1 is not a classification but the prescription of a specific qualification, so as to identify the best and most suitable candidate. We say this because, going by Ext.P1, any person who has been a “Santhi” for the last 12 years, out of which ten years having been continuously served as a “Melsanthi”, would become qualified for being invitied to the process of selection as “Melsanthi” of the Sabarimala temple.

8. We fail to understand how Shri Manilal contends that there is a classification among the “Santhis” here.

9. All “Melsanthis” are “Santhis” and therefore, what is now sought to be done is not to classify “Santhis” and “Melsanthis” into two categories, but to prescribe an additional qualification for the aspiring “Santhis”, so that the Devaswom Board will be able to obtain the best of the lot. This is imperative because we are told that there are more than 1200 “Santhis” in the service of the Board, out of which a large majority would have already qualified as being a “Santhi” for more than 12 years. The intention of the Board obviously, therefore, is to identify and pick the best out of them, by stipulating a further qualification, not in the form of a sub-classification, but as an additional prescription, for identifying the best among the aspirants available.

10. This is ineluctable, since Ext.P1 notificatio