Trustee alone is competent to appoint Poojari for temples.

.1. The petitioner prays for the issue of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the letter in Mu.Mu.No.92120/92 H2 dated 111. 1998 on the file of the first respondent, the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, quash the same and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as the Poosari for Arulmigu Vanabadrakaliamman Temple, Thekkampatti, Nellithurai.

2. Heard Mr.T.L.Ram Mohan, senior counsel for petitioner, Mr.R.Balasubramanian, Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.W.C.Tiruvengadam for the second respondent and Mr.D.Rajagopal for the 4th respondent.

3. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is the hereditary trustee of Arulmigu Vanabadrakaliamman Temple, that a vacancy for the post of Poosari arose in the said temple, that the said post is lying vacant for the past 3xh years, that the petitioners father was a poosari in the said temple for nearly 40 years, that after reaching the age of super-annuation, he retired on 30.6.1995, that thereafter no regular poosari has been appointed that the second respondent without filling up the permanent vacancy has been performing the poojas through one Jyotimani, who was actually a Pracharkar and not qualified to perform the rituals to the Deity and that there had been strong protest for the continuance of the said Jyothimani.

4. It is further contended by the petitioner that to fill up the permanent vacancy, the second respondent invited applications by a publication made in Thinanthanthi dated 211. 97, that the petitioner applied to the said post, besides eight others, that on 15. 1998 an interview was conducted, that the petitioner produced all the testimonials to prove his qualifications, that in all five persons including the petitioner out of nine appeared for interview, that after conducting selection, the second respondent selected the petitioner as Poosari and also passed resolution on 15. 1998, that the second respondent did not issue orders of appointment on certain objections raised by the first respondent, that the first respondent had objected to the appointment as certain civil proceedings instituted by the petitioner against the temple is pending and that in view of the same, the petitioner it is alleged is not qualified to be appointed to the post of poosari.

.5. It is further alleged by the petitioner that a legal opinion was obtained by the second respondent, that the second respondent was advised that the pendency of the suit is not a bar for the appointment of the petitioner, that a vacancy either temporary or permanent in a religious institution has to be filled up by the trustees in all cases, that the second respondent moved the first respondent for permission to appoint, that the first respondent was not inclined to approve the appointment that the first respondent by letter dated 111. 1998 declined permission to appoint the petitioner without going into the petitioners eligibility while directing that the second respondent should follow the instructions given in Circular No.41491/92 H1 dated 25. 1992 as well as another circular dated 16. 1993 and that proposal should be sent to the first respondent through the Joint Commissioner under Section 23 of the Act to fill up the post.

6. According to the petitioner, in view of the first respondents letter dated 111. 1998, the second respondent is reluctant to appoint the petitioner, though the second respondent alone is the competent authority to appoint all the employees of the temple. The proposals submitted in this respect had been delayed. According to the petitioner, the second respondent is the competent appointing authority for the said post and that the first respondent cannot interfere in the guise of exercising general powers under Section 23 of the Act.

7. It is stated that Section 23 of the Act has no application as it provides for general superintendence and that a specific power has been conferred on the her