S. Manickam vs The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Chennai, The Executive Officer, A/m. Mariamman Vinayagar Temple, Pichampalayam, Tiruppur Town, A/m. Mariamman Vinayagar Temple and R. Sundaramoorthy Sivam

Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma

The petitioner, by claiming to be the President of the Poojari Association, has challenged the impugned order, passed by the respondent no. 1,

in rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner. The Executive Officer / the respondent no. 2 appointed Archagar in the temple on adhoc basis

for a period of six months and the appointment is being extended from time to time for further period of six months, awaiting approval by

respondent no. 2, to fill up the post on regular basis.

The petitioner, being aggrieved by the action of respondent no. 2, filed representation with respondent no. 1, claiming therein that the posts of

Poojari and Archagar are two different posts, therefore, respondent no. 2 be directed to fill up the posts on regular basis.

This Court, on earlier occasion without going into the merits of controversy, disposed of W.P. No. 11279 of 2011, by directing respondent no.

1 to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner dated 07.05.2011 by passing necessary orders thereon. It is in pursuance to the order

passed by this Court, that the impugned order has been passed, rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained, being arbitrary and without jurisdiction and

also being violative of principles of natural justice. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the impugned order is contrary to

the earlier direction issued. The respondent no. 3 / Temple has appointed only Poojari. Whereas worship is to be done by Archagars, therefore,

the impugned order cannot be sustained.

On consideration, I find that the writ petition is totally misconceived. It is now well settled principles of law that there can be no Public Interest

Litigation, in service matters, and only the person, aggrieved by the service condition can approach this Court.

The petitioner, claiming himself to be the President of Poojari Association, has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of Poojaris or

Archagars.

Even otherwise, the writ petition is misconceived, as the order passed is for appointment of Poojaris on adhoc basis pending sanction of posts in

accordance with law, it is only thereafter that the posts can be filled up after following due process of law by giving opportunity to all eligible

persons.

The impugned order is strictly in consonance with law, specially when the petitioner has not been able to draw any distinct between Poojari and

Archargar. Consequently, finding no merits in this writ petition, it is order to be dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.