Female not disqualified from being appointed as priest of temple

By consent of parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

2. The following important questions of law are involved in this writ petition.

1. Is a Hindu Woman entitled to be appointed as a trustee to a Hindu Temple?

2. Is there any departure from the traditional Hindu Law in appointing a woman as a trustee of Hindu Temple? To use the activised terminology of Justice Krishna Iyer, has the Tamil Nadu Temple Administration Board in appointing Rajalakshmi as one of the trustees of Vettudaiyar Kaliamman Temple at Ariyakuruchi, rendered gender justice, without in any way violating the traditional Hindu Law?

3. The Tamil Nadu Temple Administration Board, the first respondent herein appointed five trustees to administer the Vettudaiyar Kaliamman Temple by its resolution dated 13. 1993. They are: (1) T.Meyyappan, 2. M.Veerapandian, 3. R.Rajalakshmi, 4. M.P.Kannappan, 5. K.Karuppiah, The tenure of office of the trustee is for three years and it will take effect from the date of election of the Chairman. The 2nd respondent has convened the meeting of the Board of Trustees for the election of the Chairman. At this stage, the petitioner herein has filed this writ of certiorarified mandamus challenging the appointment of Tmt.Rajalakshmi on the ground that the same is not in conformity with the scheme framed by this Court in Appeal No.377 of 1927 dated 111. 1930 and quash the impugned order. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the said scheme framed by the court does not envisage the appointment of a Hindu female trustee to the temple and also that the said scheme mentions only that the temple and its property shall be administered and managed by a body of three trustees appointed by the Ramnad District Temple Committee from time to time. The writ petitioner has also filed W.M.P. No.10948 of 1993 for directing the respondents not to convene the meeting of the board of trustees scheduled to be held on 14. 1994 and also filed W.M.P. No. 10947 of 1993 for stay of all further proceedings. This Court by order dated 14. 1993 granted interim stay and direction. The writ petitioner did not implead all the affected parties and therefore, respondents 5 to 7 moved an application before this Court for impleading themselves and the same has been ordered by this Court. The petitioner is challenging the appointment of Smt.Rajalakshmi apart from challenging the appointment of other four trustees.

4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order appointing five trustees is not in conformity with the scheme framed by this Court under Sec.92 of Civil Procedure Code in Appeal No.377 of 1927. The learned counsel for the petitioner in particular drew the attention of this Court to para.2 of the scheme which states that the temple and its property shall be administered and managed by a body of three trustees appointed by Ramnad District Temple Committee from time to time, one of whom however shall be a representative of pujaris and from the male members of their families and the remaining two trustees shall be appointed from among the persons professing the Hindu religion and above 25 years of age and residing permanently within a radius of 5 miles from the temple and not subject to any of disqualifications mentioned in Madras Act II of 1927. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ap-peinment made by the first respondent Tamil Nadu Temple Administration Board is in violation of the scheme and therefore, there is infirmity in the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a woman cannot be appointed as a trustee to the temple, Vettudaiyar Kaliamman Temple. In this connection, the learned counsel cited the ruling of the Supreme Court in Raj Kali Kuer v. Ram Rattan Pandey, (1955)2 M.L.J. (S.C.) 49: 1955 S.C.J. 493: (1955)2 S.C.R. 186: 1955 M.W.N. 790: A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 493 at 497, wherein various functions ana duties of a pujari in a Hi