RACHAYYA HIREMATH Vs. STATE OF KERNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the case of the petitioners that they have been functioning as Arachaks in the respondent Temple since 1992 on adhoc basis. They claim to be eligible and qualified for being appointed as Arachakas in any notified Temple or Institution. They submitted that in pursuance of the Judgment dated 22-2-2007 passed in Writ Petition No.30993/2001, the 3rd respondent initiated the process for recruitment of Arachakas by Notification dated 6-3-2007 which was published in "Samyuktha Karnataka" newspaper dated 8-3-2007, the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, who was holding the post of Executive Officer of the Temple conducted interviews on 31-4-2007 and 14-4-2007. The respondent Assistant Commissioner being dissatisfied with the process of selection directed the holding of fresh recruitment of the Arachakas. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent conducted interview from amongst the 8 banas on 6th and 8th August, 2007 and prepared a list reflecting their performance in the interview and submitted the list to the 2nd respondent for making the appointment. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 25-8-2007 appointed the respondents 5 to 18 as Archakas subject to the condition that they shall obtain necessary qualifications. Aggrieved by this order the present petition is filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Krishna Dixit, submitted that the appointment of Arachakas is in gross violation of Section 10 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1997. That the persons appointed by virtue of the impugned order lack the qualifications required for such an appointment. In view of the absence of qualification, the relaxation granted by the respondents to procure the qualifications is not permitted under the Act and hence the impugned order being bad in law deserves to be set aside. It is further contended that in terms of Rule 12, the Committee of Management would recommend the list of appointees and subject to the approval by the Commissioner, the Committee would make the appointments, but however in the instant case, the appointments having been made directly by the Commissioner by the impugned order is bad in law.

(3.) SRI V.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the appointment has been made by virtue of the promulgamation of the new Act. Therefore, the Scheme under which the Temple was being administered and the consequential orders passed by the Division Bench would not be applicable to any appointment by the Temple. He submits that the Temple being governed by the new Act. Sections 9, 10 and the procedure enunciated in Rule 12 needs to be complied with. Failure of such compliance therefore render the impugned order bad in law.