BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17/09/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU
Writ Petition(MD)No.11923 of 2010
1. M.Raja Bagavath Sing
2. P. Patturajan
3. M. Marimuthu
4. P. Arunachalam
5. V. Subas Chandraboss ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government
Department of Tamil Development
Religious Endowment and Information
Chief Secretariat
Chennai.
2. The Commissioner
Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowment Department
Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 600 034.
3. Joint Commissioner of Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowment
Tirunelveli Region
Tirunelveli.
4. The Joint Commissioner/
Executive Officer
Arulmighu Subramaniya Swami Thirukoil
Thiruchendur
Thoothukudi
5. V.C.Jayanthinathan
6. P. Pandi
7. C. Devadossasundaram ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the
impugned order dated 2/9/2010 in Moo.Mu.No.50598/2010/Z2 issued by the second
respondent and quash the same.
!For petitioners... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan
^For respondents... Mr.S.C.HeroldSingh,GA
for R.R.1 to 4
Mr.P.T.S.Narendra Vasan
for R.R.5 to 7.
- - - - -
:ORDER
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.
2. 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.
3. 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 5 b, 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.
4. Under Rule 5 (b) (2), it is stated that
the Executive Authority shall notify the details of vacancies and take actin for
publication of notices calling for applications.”
5. 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.
6. 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 thereunder, the remedy is left under the Act.
7. It is unnecessary to go into the allegations made by the petitioners
namely the two individuals are either 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. It must also be noted that the Management in the temple cannot have
any statutory matter, though it may be 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.
12. In view of the effective and alternative efficacious remedy is
available, writ petition is not maintainable against the Managing Trustees of
the temple.
13. In the result, the writ petition is misconceived and it stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
mvs.