The appointment of an Archaka is a secular act and hence, the hereditary right cannot be claimed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: PETITION under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in reference to the impugned notice dated 18.1.2018 on the file of the respondents 2 and 3, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents forbearing them from initiating any further proceedings in pursuance to the impugned notice dated 18.1.2018.)

The above writ petition has been filed by the Sthanikam of Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem, assailing the advertisement dated 18.1.2018 issued by respondents 2 and 3 herein calling for applications to fill up the position of Archakas/Sthanikam at Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :

(i) The petitioner hails from the family of Sivachariyars and their family has been performing the poojas from time immemorial and the position of Sthanikam was occupied as a hereditary right. Accordingly, after his grandfather, the petitioner took over the position as Sthanikam and was performing the poojas.

(ii) The customs and usages were the basis for occupying the position as Sthanikam and every time when there is a change in the Sthanikam, a letter of intimation used to be give to the Authorities, who also granted approval subsequently.

(iii) The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 2 and 3, all of a sudden, issued the impugned advertisement calling for applications for appointment to the position of Archakas/Sthanikam of the subject temple and that the impugned advertisement infringes upon the hereditary right of the petitioner and others, who are rendering their services as per the customs and usage in the line of succession from time immemorial. Accordingly, the impugned advertisement has been put to challenge in the above writ petition.

3. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 08.6.2023, this Court passed the following order :

"The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition pertains to the notification issued by the Executive Officer of Sri Sugavaneswarar Swamy Temple, Salem dated 18.01.2018 calling for applications to fill up the post of Archagar/Sthanigar.

2. Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged the following points.

(a) The temple in question is an Agamic temple and hence any appointment of Archagar/Sthanigar can be done only as per the customs and usage.

(b) In order to substantiate the above submission, the learned Senior Counsel specifically relied upon the register maintained under Section 38 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (HR & CE Act) dated 07.08.1933, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that there is a hereditary right to perform Abhishegam, Archana, Deeparadhana, Pooja etc., and the person performing the same is not entitled for any maanyam. The second document that was relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel was the judgment in O.S.No.207 of 1946 passed by the District Munsif, Salem pertaining to the same temple, wherein issue No.1 specifically dealt with the customs and usage and the right of the person under the custom and it was held that nothing in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act should affect the rights of those persons who are otherwise entitled under the customs. The third document that was relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel is the Board’s order dated 09.12.1946 wherein the Board has held that there are no powers under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act to alter or modify or cancel the rights acquired and enjoyed by the concerned person due to long standing usage and custom.

(c) The learned Senior Counsel made it clear that the petitioner is not attacking the impugned notification by claiming any hereditary right to the post of Archagar/ Sthanigar and the main ground of attack is that the qu