ORDER :

[Common Prayer : Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 4th respondent temple dated 12.08.2021 resulting in the appointment of the 5th respondents as Archakas in the 4th respondent temple and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to confirm petitioners' services as Archakas in the 4th respondent Temple.]

The proceedings dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Fit Person of Arulmighu Subramaniya Swamy Thirukoil, Kumaravayalur, Srirangam Taluk, Trichy is under challenge in both these writ petitions. Vide impugned proceedings, the Fit Person had appointed Thiru.K.Kailash, S. Prabu and S. Jayabalan to the post of Archakar in the said temple. The appointments of S. Prabu and S. Jayabalan have been questioned by the petitioners herein. Notification dated 06.07.2021 was issued calling for applications from eligible persons for filling up the vacancies that had arisen in various posts including the three posts of Archakar. The petitioners herein applied in response thereto. However, they were not selected. In the meanwhile, the impugned appointment order came to be issued on 12.08.2021.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions and called upon this Court to quash the impugned order and grant relief as prayed for. Interim order was granted at the time of admission. To vacate the same, petitions had been filed by the Government. The learned Additional Advocate General took me through its contents. Shri. Prabu as well as Shri. Jayabalan who are figuring as respondents have also filed counter affidavits and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for them submitted that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

3. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The respondents have raised two preliminary objections. They pointed out that these writ petitions have been filed only in September 2022 while the impugned order was issued on 12.08.2021. They argue that this Court ought not to entertain a belated challenge in service matters. The second contention is that the petitioners having taken part in the selection process are estopped from challenging the parameters and norms that governed the selection process. They relied on a host of case-laws in support of the aforesaid contentions.

4. Both the objections are utterly bereft of merit. It is a fact that following the promulgation of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 and the appointments of temple priests, petitions were filed before the Hon'ble First Bench. All India Adi Saiva Sivacharyargal Seva Sangam represented by its General Secretary filed WP No.16287 of 2021. One individual also filed WP No. 15739 of 2021. An interim order was even granted as early as on 05.08.2021 in WP No.16287 of 2021. The writ petitions were disposed of on 27.06.2022 by the Hon'ble First Bench by reserving the right of the individual candidate to challenge the individual appointment of Archaka. The Hon'ble First Bench reiterated that the authorities are obliged to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 2 SCC 11 and Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2016 SC 209) in the matter of appointment of Archakas. It was categorically observed that if any appointment has been made offending the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the individual appointment can be challenged in the manner known to law. On 22.08.2022, WP Nos.17802 of 2021 filed by the said Sangam was disposed of by holding that if any appointment of Archaka is made offending the Agamas, it would be amenable to challenge before the Court by the individual aggrieved person.

5. When liberty has been granted by the Hon'ble First Bench in such unambigu