The central legal point established is that the power to appoint temple staff, as per Section 55 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, rests with the trustees and cannot be overridden by administrative orders.

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents culminating in Second Respondents Order Na. Ka.12939/98-1/P C dated 23.11.1998 and quash the same.

The prayer in the writ petition is for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondents culminating in Second Respondent's Order Na.Ka.12939/98-1/P C dated 23.11.1998 and quash the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are set out below:

(i) The first petitioner is the Chairman and other petitioners are the trustees of the Trust Board of Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Thirukoil, Madurai. In 1996, the first respondent announced a policy to appoint 150 Tamil Pulavars to perform certain functions like recite Devaram, Thiruvasagam, etc., on a consolidated monthly pay of Rs.1,500/-. The first respondent selected totally 150 Tamil Pulavars for the Temples in the cities of Chennai, Madurai, Trichy and Coimbatore. The Temples were permitted to employ them as Pulavars under Section 55 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. By letter dated 17.0 9.1998, the first respondent immediately directed the third respondent to appoint the fourth respondent. The petitioners brought to the notice of the first respondent by their letter dated 05.10.1998 that the Trust Board has not passed any Resolution for the appointment of the Pulavar of the Temple and requeste d the first respondent to reconsider the said decision. The reasons for seeking reconsideration of the decision were that the temple does not have sufficient space, there is no library in the temple and the Hundi collection is approximately only Rs.30,000/- per month and hence it would be difficult to make payment to the Pulavar after meeting the temple expenses. It was also brought to the notice of the first respondent that one Mr. Vannamuthu has already giving religious lectures on payment of Rs.150/- per lecture.

(ii) While so, the second respondent by his letter dated 23.11.1998 directed the first petitioner to issue appointment order to the fourth respondent through the third respondent. The said proceedings of the second respondent is challenged in the above writ petition. On receipt of the communication from the second respondent, the third respondent requested the Trust Board to pass a Resolution for appointment and filing up the Pulavar post. But the Trust Board resolved not to make such appointments. But inspite of the said resolution, the third respondent without the knowledge and consent of the petitioners, had appointed the fourth respondent, as Pulavar for the Temple. Inspite of the letter dated 04.12.1998 written by the petitioners to the first respondent, the appointment has not been cancelled and hence the above writ petition has been filed.

3. The main contention of the petitioners is that under Section 55 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, the trustees alone can make appointment of temple staff and the executive officer has no say in that. When the Trust Board has specifically declined to make the appointment, the action of the Executive Officer in appointing the fourth respondent is contrary to Section 55. It is further contended that the proceedings of the first respondent dated 10.06.1997 only permit the making of such appointment of Tamil Pulavar and it does not compel such appointment.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 have not filed any counter affidavit. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that only with a view to implement the policy of the Government of Tamil Nadu with regard to the appointment of Tamil Pulavars, in furtherance of the direction issued by the first respondent, the third respondent has appointed the fourth respondent to the post of Tamil Pulavar in the Temple. The third respondent has admitted that under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, only the Trust Board of the Temple