IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4450 of 2005(D)
1. SARATH C., AGED 21 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. GOPESH KUMAR K., SREE LAKSHMI,
3. RANJITH KUNIYIL,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS &
3. THE ZAMORIN RAJA OF CALICUT,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.M.G.ASHOKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :08/07/2008
O R D E R
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.C. Nos. 4450,4857,5719
& 29986 OF 2005
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair,J.
The challenge in these four Writ Petitions, two filed by Trustee
and two filed by appointees, is against the order of the Deputy
Commissioner under Section 20 and under Rules issued under Section
102(y) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act,
cancelling the appointments made by Trustee, namely, Zamorin Raja of
Calicut. The case of the petitioners is that under Section 48 of the Act,
the Trustee is the ultimate authority to make appointments and
appointments in these cases are made by following the procedure laid
down in the Rules made under Section 102(y) of the Act. Petitioner in
WPC 29986 of 2005 was appointed in the year 1997 and is continuing
for the last 11 years. Similarly petitioners in WPC 4450 of 2005 were
appointed in 2003 and are continuing under interim orders of this
Court. The posts filled up by these persons are either that of Clerk,
temple security, or store keeper. The Deputy Commissioner acted on
complaint from somebody stasting that appointments are arbitrary and
2
without even calling for applications from among qualified persons.
Admittedly the qualification prescribed is IIIrd Form or VIIIth Std.
Senior counsel Sri. M.C. Sen appearing for the Trustee submitted that
32 temples are under the control of the Trustee and as and when
vacancies arise in a temple publications are made in the same temple
and appointments are made from among the applicants, who are mostly
locals. Senior counsel also submitted that the post carries very low
wages and there is hardly any demand for the same. In any case, we
agree with the Deputy Commissioner that a fair procedure is required
in appointment in as much as everyone eligible is given an opportunity
to apply for the post. In these cases, there is controversy as to whether
applications were called for and appointments were made in a fair
manner. Even though the Deputy Commissioner has considered
records pertaining to appointments before issuing orders cancelling
those appointments, it is not known whether complainants were
applicants for the post and whether they had any grievance against
appointments. In any case, we do not think there is any justification to
interfere with appointments of the petitioners in WPC 4450 and 29986
of 2005 more so because appointments were made by the Zomarin Raja
of Calicut in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act and there
3
is nothing to indicate that any other eligible candidate applied for the
post was denied an opportunity. In the circumstances, we dispose of
the Writ Petitions by upholding the appointments of petitioners in
WPC 4450 and 29986 of 2005 but with direction to the Trustee to
follow fair procedure for selection and appointment of persons in 32
temples and it will be open to the Deputy Commissioner to interfere
with appointments, subject to provisions of the Act and Rules. If any
approval is required for appointments made , the same will be granted
by the Deputy Commissioner. The Trustee shall make appointments
only by way of replacement on account of retirement/death/resignation
of the incumbent. If any new post is to be created, he will take prior
approval of the Deputy Commissioner. In view of the above directions,
Ext.P5 order produced in WPC No. 5719 and Ext.P7 order in WPC
4857 of 2005 are cancelled.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(V. K. MOHANAN)
Judge.
kk
4