Back
N. ANAND VENKATESH
Muthu Subramania Gurukkal – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai – Respondent
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 whe
The appointment of an Archaka is a secular act and hence, the hereditary right cannot be claimed.
The appointment of Archakas in temples constructed as per Agamas shall be governed by the Agamas and not by the Rules framed by the State Government.
Caste-based restrictions in the appointment of priests violate constitutional rights to equality and must align with qualifications, not caste.
Exclusion of other castes from the position of Melsanthi based on heritage does not violate constitutional rights, as it respects longstanding religious practices and customs integral to the temple's....
Fairness in administrative decisions mandates that eligibility criteria must be regularly upheld; impossibility of meeting requirements should excise strict adherence to those criteria.
The availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner under Section 69 of the HR and CE Act rendered the writ petition not maintainable.
The Executive Officer of a religious institution or endowment, whose annual income exceeds ten lakhs rupees, has the exclusive jurisdiction and power to deal with the office holders and servants of t....
The court established that disputes regarding hereditary claims and functions related to temple duties should be resolved in civil court rather than through writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the secular....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
