Soorya Prakash vs The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswam Board & Anr.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant applied to the post of ‘Adichuthali’ (cleaning work) in the ‘Cherpulassery Ayappankavu Devaswom’ - of which the 2^nd respondent is the Managing Trustee. However, his application was not considered by the 2^nd respondent, citing the reason that he was over 45 years in age; while, the notification fixed the upper age limit to be 40 years.

It is the specific case of the appellant, as argued by his learned counsel – Sri.K.Ravi, that when the statutory Rules framed under the provisions of Section 100(2)(y) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), provide the age range for the post in question – to be not less than 18 and not more than 65 years, the 2^nd respondent did not obtain the competence to have fixed 40 years as the upper age limit. He argued that, if such an unbridled power is allowed to be exercised by Managing Trustees, they will use it in a capricious manner, as has been done in this case. He explained that his client is only 45 years in age, being physically competent to do the job; but that he has been denied the opportunity of even applying to the post on account of the restrictive stipulations in Ext.P2 notification. He alleged that the learned Single Judge, however, did not consider this perspective and consequently dismissed Writ Petition; thus constraining his client to file this Appeal.

In response, Sri.K.Mohana Kannan – learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, argued that, since the Rules aforementioned do not mention a particular upper age limit to be fixed for appointments, but only provide the broad range between which a person can aspire to be appointed, it was fully within his client’s competence to decide what kind of applicants are to be attracted, adverting to the nature of the job - which is cleaning, which requires some amount of physical endurance also. He argued that there is no restriction - statutorily or under the precedential declarations - that his client cannot fix a particular age limit for the post in question; and prayed that, therefore, this Appeal be dismissed.

Smt.R.Ranjanie – learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board, affirmed that her client has not given any instructions to the Managing Trustees or Trustees of temples under their supervisory control; and that, generally, they exercise discretion to fix qualifications, which are not in violation of the ‘Act’ or ‘Rules’. She, nevertheless, conceded that this can create a situation where different Temples adopt different yardsticks and even separate qualifications – which, she also conceded to a pointed question from this Court, cannot be conducive to uniformity.

Before we evaluate the afore submissions and answer them, we must keep in mind that, when this matter was considered by another learned Division Bench of this Court on 25.03.2022, an interim order was issued, allowing the appellant to apply for the post and to participate in the selection process. However, the order specified that such participation shall not offer him any vested right; and that it would abide by the final decision to be taken.

The law involved is not abstruse. The Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the ‘Act’, particularly Rule 4(2) thereof, says as under:

It is the afore range prescribed, which has given rise to the polemic in this case.

As seen above, Sri.K.Ravi takes the stand that, when the stipulation is as above, the Managing Trustee of a Temple cannot fix a unilateral upper age limit; while, the contra-stand of Sri.Mohana Kannan is that the aforementioned flexibility itself indicates the competence of his client to prescribe the upper age limit, based on the requirements of the post.

We are fully aware that the post in question is a cleaning post, which requires some amount of physical endurance. Therefore, the question is whether the 2^nd respondent was in error in having fixed 40 years to be the upper age limit for it.

We find force in the submissions of Sri.K.Mohana Kannan that, when the ‘Act’ or ‘Rules’ do not stipulate a particular upper age limit, it may be open to the employer – applying the doctrine of ‘play of the joints’ – to fix credentials, as are necessary for the job.

However, the question arises why not 45, and why only 40; or why not 55, and why only 40?

This question is highly conjectural and speculative, particularly when there are no underpinning statutory provisions or stipulations, that can define the discretion of the employer/appointing authority.

For the very same reason, we cannot find Ext.P2 notification to be in error, since it has fixed 40 years to be the upper age limit; though, we did make an attempt at the Bar to verify whether the appellant can be accommodated to any available vacancy. However, Sri.K.Mohana Kannan has placed on record an affidavit sworn to by his client, that there were only two posts, which already stands filled up; and that the present financial condition of the temple would not enable accommodation of any further post. In fact, the latter submission is affirmed by Smt.R.Ranjanie also.

That being said, when we notice the rather peculiar circumstances presented herein, we are of the firm view that the Board – being the conceded supervisory authority of all temples under them, particularly with respect to fiscal matters and other administrative requirements – ought to have, within the ambit of the Rules under Section 100(2)(y) of the ‘Act’, propounded a standard stipulation for all Temples to follow with respect to age limits and such other essential credentials of candidates applying for various posts. This is absolutely unexpendable because, without this, Temples, even in the same vicinity, will be in a position to appoint people of their own choice, by fixing age limits and qualifications as their Managing Trustees or Trustees may subjectively prescribe and fix.

In our sure opinion, the range shown in the afore Rule is not intended to be upper/lower age limits; but that, within which, candidates can aspire to be accommodated. To illustrate, if we are to accept the argument of Sri.K.Ravi, then, it may even be possible to contend that a person who is 64 years in age will have to be considered because, the upper age limit is 65 as per the ‘Rules’. This is why we say that, what is fixed in the ‘Rules’ is neither the lower or upper age limit; but the range, within which the candidates can be accommodated.

Therefore, even when we find no reason to intervene with the findings of the learned Single Judge in this particular case, we find it absolutely necessary that the 1^st respondent, or such other competent Authority of the Malabar Devaswom Board, immediately bring in standardized stipulations with respect to all Temples under them, qua the age limits and other essential credentials for appointments to various posts. This shall be done by them in consultation with all the stakeholders, including the Managing Trustees/Trustees, leading to appropriate instructions/directions, not later than 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Even though this matter will stand disposed of with the afore directions, we order that it be listed before us to confirm the issuance of the afore instructions, on 30.11.2026.

Exhibit R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF THE TEMPLE FROM 2020-24