AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, Sri. Radhakrishna Menoki, states that he is the Hereditary Trustee of Sree Udayakurumba Bhagavathi Temple, Karaparamba, Kozhikode. The petitioner states that the Deputy Commissioner has approved the petitioner as Hereditary Trustee vide Ext.P1 proceedings dated 16.01.2025. The administration of the said Temple is vested in a Board of Trustees including the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 8. There is an Executive Officer appointed by the Malabar Devaswom Board to conduct the day-to-day affairs of the Temple.
The petitioner contends that the Executive Officer of the Temple has invited applications from the eligible candidates for the appointment to the post of Adichuthali. According to the petitioner, the notification was not properly published by the Executive Officer. An interview board was constituted by the Malabar Devaswom Board, which consists of the Inspector, the Executive Officer of the Temple, and the Chairman of the Trustee Board, the 5th respondent. The interview was held on 16.05.2025, and a selection list was prepared. Thereafter, the selection list was submitted before the Trustee Board. Since the selection process itself was improper, the Trustee Board did not accept the list.
While so, the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, has issued Ext.P1(a) communication dated 17.07.2025 insisting the appointment from the select list and to show cause why the appointments were not made.
On 21.10.2025, the Trustee Board resolved to cancel the selection list for the post of Adichuthali as the selection process was found to be improper. The constitution of the interview board by the Malabar Devaswom Board, without including the Thantri and Hereditary Trustee as members, is itself illegal and improper.
The petitioner further states that he has submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 1st respondent, Malabar Devaswom Board, stating that there are anomalies in the interview by the Board without including Hereditary Trustees as members.
It is further contended that the Board and its officers are compelling the Trustee Board to proceed with the selection process, despite the cancellation of the select list by the Trustee Board. It is in the afore circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :
“(i)To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction directing the 1 st Respondent to consider Exhibit P3 and pass appropriate orders in the light of Exhibit P2 and to permit the selection for appointment to the post of Adichuthali in Sree Udayakurumba Bhagavathi temple, in Karaparamba in Kozhikode District
(ii)To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to make a fresh selection to the post of Adichuthali in Sree Udayakurumba Bhagavathi temple, in Karaparamba in Kozhikode District after issuing fresh notification.
(iii)To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction directing Respondents 1 to 3 include the Hereditary Trustee in the Interview Board for appointment to the post of Adichuthali in Sree Udayakurumba Bhagavathi temple, in Karaparamba in Kozhikode District in accordance with law;
The 2nd respondent, the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, has placed on record a counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter that by Ext.R1(1) notification dated 21.08.2024, all the 4 Trustees of the temple took a decision to invite applications for the post of Adichuthali (Sweeper) in the temple. Thereafter, an Interview Board was constituted, consisting of 3 members, the Chairman of Board of Trustees, the Executive Officer, and the Divisional Inspector, which was approved by the Area Committee of Malabar Devaswom Board. Further, it is contended that though the petitioner assumed charge as Hereditary Trustee on 16.01.2025, he had not challenged the said decision.
It is further contended that an interview was conducted on 16.05.2025, in which 10 candidates participated. Ext.R1(3) is the final selected list after completing the selection process.
The appointment to the said post was delayed as the Trustee Board took a decision on 21.10.2025 to cancel decision No.2 of the Board of Trustees dated 15.01.2025. The said decision was taken on the premise that the Thantri and the Hereditary Trustee were not included in the Interview Board.
The petitioner has placed on record a reply affidavit denying the contentions in the counter affidavit.
Sri. K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that by virtue of Section 48 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (“the Act” for the sake of brevity), the appointing authority of temple servants is the hereditary trustee. The Interview Board was constituted without the participation of the petitioner, the hereditary trustee of the temple. Since the very constitution of the Interview Board itself is illegal and violative of Section 48 of the Act, all further proceedings initiated pursuant thereto are illegal.
The learned counsel pointed out that Ext.P2 decision of the Trustee Board, consisting of the Hereditary Trustee, the petitioner and respondents 5 to 8, is legal and valid.
Smt. R. Ranjanie, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, on the other hand, would submit that there is no justification for the cancellation of the select list, after the finalisation of the selection process.
We have heard the submissions of Sri. K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. R. Ranjanie, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, and Sri. K. P. Sudheer, the learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7.
Before further discussion, it may be useful to extract Section 48 of the Act, which reads thus:
48. Appointment of office-holders and servants in
Religious Institutions. - (1) Vacancies, whether permanent or temporary, amongst the office-holders or servants of a religious institution shall be filled up by the trustee in cases where the office or service is not hereditary.
(2)In cases where the office or service is hereditary, the next in the line of succession shall be entitled to succeed.
(3)Where, however, there is a dispute respecting the right of succession, or Where such vacancy cannot be filled up immediately, or Where the person entitled to succeed is a minor without a guardian fit and willing to act as such, or there is a dispute respecting the person who is entitled to act as guardian, or Where the hereditary office-holder or servant is suspended from his office, under section 49, sub-section (1), the trustee may appoint a fit person to discharge the functions of the office or perform the service, until the disability of the office holder or servant ceases or another person succeeds to the office or service, as the case may be.
Explanation. - In making any appointment under this sub-section, the trustee shall have due regard to the claims of members of the family, if any, entitled to the succession.
(4)Any person affected by an order of the trustee under sub-section (3) may, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order by him, appeal against the order to the Deputy Commissioner.”
On a plain reading of Section 48, it is clear that the vacancies to the office holders and servants, whether permanent or temporary, shall be filled up by the trustees.
In Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom v. Malabar Devaswom Board1, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the Malabar Devaswom Board or its Officers have no power to make appointments.
In Sivasankaran v. Malabar Devaswom Board2, this Court opined that in the matter of appointment or enforcement of discipline, the Executive Officer of a temple cannot have a stand which is contrary to the stand of the trustee, who is a statutory appointing authority.
In Malabar Devaswom Board v. Hareesh3, this Court observed that the sole prerogative in making appointments to the vacancies in the sanctioned posts will be vested in the temple trustee, going by the mandate contained in Section 48(1) of the Act.
The judgments referred to above would make it amply clear that the appointment of temple servants is the prerogative of the trustees insofar as it is to the post sanctioned by the Board.
In the instant case, the selection to the post of Adichuthali/Sweeper was conducted by an interview board which consists of the Inspector of the Malabar Devaswom Board, Executive Officer of the temple and the then Chairman of the Trustee Board, that is, the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent is a non-hereditary trustee. From the records, we find that the interview was held on 16.05.2025 and a select list of ten candidates was prepared. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the hereditary trustee was not included in the Interview Board, and the consent of the temple Thantri was also not obtained. The petitioner herein took charge pursuant to Ext.P1 proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16.01.2025. Thereafter, the Trustee Board, vide Ext.P2 order, has resolved to cancel decision No.2 dated 15.01.2025 with regard to the appointment of Sweeper. The reason stated for the said cancellation is stated in Ext.P2 that the Interview Board was constituted without the participation of the Thantri and the hereditary trustee. Essentially, the earlier Interview Board was constituted by two officers of the Malabar Devaswom Board and a non-hereditary trustee. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom (supra), Sivasankaran (supra) and Hareesh (supra), we hold that the very constitution of the Interview Board excluding the hereditary trustee itself is against the mandate of Section 48(1) of the Act. In such circumstances, the select list prepared pursuant to the interview cannot be said to be legal.
On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the relevant statutory provisions, we are of the view that the reliefs claimed in the writ petition can be granted.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions :-
The respondents 1 to 4 shall make a fresh selection to the post of Adichuthali/Sweeper in Sree Udayakurumba Bhagavathi Temple, Karaparamba, Kozhikode, after issuing fresh notification.
They are further directed to include the hereditary trustee in the Interview Board for the appointment to the post of Adichuthali/ Sweeper.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.