M. Raja Bagavath Sing and Others vs The Secretary to Government Department of Tamil Development Religious Endowment and Information Chief Secretariat and Others

K. Chandru, J.—The first Petitioner is the President of the temple Employees Association at Thiruchendur. The other four Petitioners are

employees working in the said temple. They have come forward to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable

Endowment, namely, the second Respondent dated 2/9/2010. By the said order, the second Respondent has permitted the Joint Commissioner-

cum-Executive Officer to appoint two candidates in the post of Public Relation Officer and the Assistant Public Relation Officer on a consolidated

salary of Rs. 10,000/-and Rs. 7,000/-respectively, that too for a period of six months. The said order came to be passed on the basis of the

resolution of the Board of the Managing Trustees as well as the recommendations made by the Commissioner/third Respondent herein. Aggrieved

against such appointments, the Petitioners have come forward to challenge the present writ petition.

Mr. G.R. Swaminathan, counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Commissioner cannot create such posts which are already statutorily

notified under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964. The post of Public Relation Officer, Grade

II is found in Serial No. 8 of Senior Grade Temples - Outdoor servants and the post of Public Relation Officer is above the post of Accountant.

The first Petitioner Association and the other four Petitioners have aggrieved by not only creating such a consolidated post but also claiming two

individuals for the said posts as a tailor made arrangement. Therefore, it is contended that such an appointment made in favour of two candidates,

were also made as Respondents 5 and 6 in this writ petition.

The learned Counsel further contended that the posts will not be advised properly as required under the Service Rules and reference is also

drawn to Rule 5b, wherein it is stated that if any vacancy arises in any category of posts and it has to be filled up by direct recruitment and should

obtain prior approval of the Commissioner for filling up such vacancy.

Under Rule 5 (b) (2), it is stated that the Executive Authority shall notify the details of vacancies and take act in for publication of notices calling

for applications.

In the present case, the Commissioner has not only created the post at the request of the Trustees(R.7), but also named the two individuals,

without any publicity, such vacancies have been filled up and therefore, it is an illegal appointment.

Mr. P.T.S. Narendravasan, learned Counsel taking notice for the Respondents 4 and 7 contended that it is only a stop gap arrangement and

consolidated payments have been made which are fixed tenure. He also referred to the provisions of the Act, if any orders are passed contrary to

the statue or contrary to the Rules made there under, the remedy is left under the Act.

It is unnecessary to go into the allegations made by the Petitioners namely the two individuals areeither closely related or lacking by the

Management and therefore, the appointments are mala fide. But in the present case, if the statutory enactment provides for remedy, it will be the

four corners of the law.

Firstly, this Court cannot go into the judicial purview of such appointment that too an appointment made by the Managing Trustees of the temple

with the prior approval of the competent authority.

Mr. G.R. Swaminathan contended that since the Commissioner himself has taken a decision, there cannot be any valid appeal, since the said

appeal will be an appeal to the seizure to issue.

Under Sections 114 and 114 A of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959,power has been given to the

Government to examine the record of any trustee in respect of any proceeding. Therefore, it cannot be said that the activity of the Respondents can

never be reviewed by a higher authority.

It must also be noted that the Management in the temple cannot have any statutory matter, though it maybe covered by certain and periodical

instruction issued by the Government. Further, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, provides power to the

Government to call for and examine the record of any trustee in respect of any proceeding. Without exhausting such remedy, the Petitioners cannot

file a writ petition directly before this Court.

In view of the effective and alternative efficacious remedy is available, writ petition is not maintainable against the Managing Trustees of the

temple.

In the result, the writ petition is misconceived and it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.