SATYANARAYANA SHASTRI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA THOUGH CHIEF SECRETARY MUZRAI DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the petitions are listed for consideration of the application for vacating stay, considering that the petition lies in a narrow compass, the petitions are taken up for consideration with the consent of the learned counsel and disposed of by this order. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 02.03.2013 impugned at Annexure -'A'. Further, a direction has also been sought that the said order is arbitrary and illegal.

(2.) THE fact that the petitioners and the Respondents No. 5 and 6 are working as Archakas in the 4th Respondent Temple is not in dispute. The question for consideration is only with regard to the manner in which they are required to discharge their function as Archakas in the said Temple. The grievance put forth by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners is that at an earlier instance, when the first petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 26024/2003 disposed of on 13.08.2003, this Court had noticed that the first petitioner herein was working as Pradhana Archaka and the manner of rotation to be made as provided under Section 9(2) of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 ('Act' for short) was taken into consideration and appropriate order had been made. In that view, the Special Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 01.12.2004 had also appointed the first petitioner as the Pradhana Archaka of the 4th Respondent Temple. In that view, it is contended that first and foremost the order dated 02.03.2013 made at Annexure -'A' is without jurisdiction in as much as the petitioners had not filed such appeal. It is his further contention that even otherwise, the manner in which the order had been passed providing for rotation of the Archakas would be contrary to the earlier position as ordered by this Court in as much as the first petitioner is recognized as the Pradhana Archaka. Even the manner of rotation as provided is not justified since the seniority has been ignored. Hence, it is contended that the order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) IN the light of the above, the only question to be considered is as to whether the rotation as provided is justified and whether the scope of the order passed at Annexure -'A' should be construed to include even the first petitioner for the purpose of rotation and as to whether he should be considered as the Pradhana Archaka, not being similar to the other Archakas?