Recruitment to temple posts must follow statutory regulations, overriding customary claims by Thantris, in alignment with the KDRB Act.

JUDGMENT

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P4 notification dated 17.03.2025 issued by the 4 t h respondent in respect of Category No. 19/2023 concerning the selection of Keezhsanthis and for a further direction to permit the petitioners t o conduct the interview and select eligible and qualified employees in accordance with the Koodalmanickam Act, 2005 and the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Employees Regulations, 2003 . They also sought for a declaration to quash Ext.P1 to the extent of Category No. 19/2023 calling for the post of Keezhsanthi in the Koodalmanickam Temple, Irinjalakkuda.

2. According to the petitioners, they are the Thanthris of Lord Sree Bharata perceived in the Sree Koodalmanickam Temple in Irinjalakkuda. They contend that the Koodalmanickam temple is the only ancient temple in India dedicated to the worship of Sree Bharata, brother of Sree Rama, with the idol concept of God Sree Vishnu. Being a place where the deity manifests, the temple maintains strict adherence to traditional practices and a high level of ritual purity. The petitioners assert that the post of Keezhsanthi in the temple is a hereditary right of Namboodiris belonging to the “Kurumbranadu Desam”. Only in their absence, people from certain families belonging to Irinjalakkuda, Sukapuram and Peruvanam gramams (including upa gramams) are considered. At present, the Keezhsanthi post is being occupied by daily-wage employees appointed by the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Managing Committee. One of the two Keezhsanthies now working, one belongs to Irinjalakkuda Gramam and the other to Upa-gramam of Sukapuram.

3. It is stated that the respondents 2 and 3 have notified the post to the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board for filling up the vacancy. Pursuant to the same, the 4 t h respondent issued Ext.P1 notification dated 11.10.2023. The petitioners further contend that when the 2 n d respondent had earlier initiated steps to fill up the vacancy to the post of Keezhsanthi without their knowledge or concurrence, the Thantris had submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 2n d respondent on 28.11.2022. They also rely on Section 35 of the Koodalmanickam Act, 2005 , to assert that the Thantri of the temple is the final authority concerning all religious matters.

4. The 1st respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Section 26 of Koodalmanickam Devaswom Act, 1971, incorporated the Koodalmanickam Employees Regulations, 2003 ('Regulations, 2003' for the sake of brevity) for the administration of the employees. The 2003 Regulations (Ext.P3), was brought into force for the purpose of regularising the service condition of the Koodalmanickam Devaswom. The petitioners contend that, in flagrant violation of the provisions of the statute, the 2 n d and 3 r d respondents have initiated action to illegally appoint temple employees. As per the Regulations and the provisions of the 2005 Act, the Keezhsanthi can only be appointed by the Thantri, as he is vitally involved in the ritual and ceremonies of the temple. The petitioners state that the 4t h respondent has finalized the recruitment process without their knowledge, even though they are the Thantris of the Sree Koodalmanickam Temple. Since it is the Thantri who is required to conduct the "kalasam" of the candidate who is appointed as the Keezhsanthi, the petitioners assert that they have a corresponding obligation to ensure the candidate's q ualifications. According to the petitioners, they are unaware of the qualifications considered or prescribed by the respondents 2 and 4 while selecting any candidate. They further state that the appointment of a Keezhsanthi of the Koodalmanickam temp