V. PARTHIBAN, J.

1. The case of the petitioner is that he is an archagar attached to the Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai. In the said temple, the archagars were engaged to do poojas and other allied works in the sanctum sanctorum who hail from three different family ancestors (i) those who are exclusively engaged for performing pooja; (ii) those who are engaged in "Murai work" and (3) those who do pooja and murai. The petitioner claims to belong to the first category and therefore was engaged to do pooja in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple. Whereas, according to the petitioner, the third respondent who was from the second category was engaged only as murai ie., cleaning of the sanctum sanctorum and maintenance of the lights etc. He was never involved in performing pooja at the temple at all.

2. According to the petitioner, the third respondent had been engaged to do murai work from 1968 and he has been carrying the duties as such and while so, he approached the Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer of the temple on 21.06.2010 vide his representation stating that his ancestors had enjoyed the right to do pooja and therefore, he should also be assigned pooja work. The