No hereditary poojariship; temporary Poojari appointments barred after age 60 under HR&CE Act and Rules.

ORDER :

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. 

These two writ petitions are connected, having been filed by the same petitioner, and are therefore taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.(MD)No.35892 of 2025 challenges the order passed in O.A.No.14 of 2023. The case of the petitioner is that he is presently performing pooja as the Poojari of Arulmighu Karuvelikattu Ayyanar @ Kuravanikaatu Ayyanar Vagaiyara Temple, situated at Kandiyanatham, Ponnamaravathi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. By order dated 27.09.2023, the petitioner was appointed to perform pooja under the Oru Kaala Pooja Scheme and is receiving monthly remuneration under the said scheme.

3. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner and his family have been granted service inam lands, which they are cultivating, and in return, they are obliged to render service to the Temple as Poojari. According to the petitioner, without considering his case, the order in O.A.No.14 of 2023 came to be passed. Even in the said order, while appointing the seventh respondent / Chithandi as temporary Poojari, the services rendered by the petitioner were not taken into account.

4. It is further contended that the claim of the seventh respondent or his group is only with regard to offering goats during festivals, particularly, during the Thai Pongal festival, and that too only in respect of one Sannathi, namely, before the Karuppar Sannathi, and not in respect of other Sannathis. In any event, when the claim of the seventh respondent for appointment as regular Poojari has been rejected by the Joint Commissioner, there is no justification for appointing him as a temporary Poojari, replacing the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has challenged the order passed in O.A.No.14 of 2023.

5. The other writ petition, W.P.(MD)No.35890 of 2025, is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue to perform poojas as per the order of the second respondent dated 07.02.2025 and the order of the third respondent dated 27.09.2023, as Hereditary-cum-Registered Poojari under the Tamil Nadu Oru Kaala Pooja Scheme and the Charter relating to service inam lands granted by the Pudukkottai Samasthanam.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, by virtue of the service inam granted, the petitioner is entitled to continue, and that his appointment under the Oru Kaala Pooja Scheme is justified.

7. The writ petitions are resisted by the respondents. The learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the H.R. & C.E. authorities, submitted that the writ petition challenges the order in O.A.No.14 of 2023, for which an effective alternative remedy of appeal is available, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the seventh respondent was not found eligible for appointment on a regular basis, as no office of poojariship can be claimed on hereditary basis, and the appointment made is only temporary as a stopgap arrangement.

8. Insofar as W.P.(MD)No.35890 of 2025 is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner’s appointment under the Oru Kaala Pooja Scheme is also purely temporary, and no permanent right can be claimed.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the seventh respondent / Chithandi submitted that, upon production of appropriate documents before the Joint Commissioner, including the Seppu Pattayam, the seventh respondent and his family members have been conferred certain rights to perform pooja. According to him, the case relates to customary rights, and therefore, the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seshammal and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 2 SCC 11 would not apply. It is further submitted that even though the seventh respondent / Chithandi is aggrieved by the order insofar as denial of hereditary right is concerned, he has been granted only a temporary appointment and proposes to prefer an appea