(1.) THE petitioner is the hereditary trustee of Sri Mamanikunnu Mahadevi Temple, at Irikkur, in Kannur District. The post of Executive Officer of the temple became vacant. Pursuant thereto, Sri. P.K. Surendran Retired Deputy Commissioner (Admn) of H.R. &
(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents supporting Exts.P3 & P4 orders. But now the respondents 2 & 3 does not dispute the fact that, the power to appoint an Executive Officer vests with the trustee in accordance with Clause 4 of Ext.P1 Scheme, subject to approval of the Commissioner. But they would contend that, the petitioner cannot appoint a person of his choice arbitrarily. He can appoint only a person through a transparent selection process, in which the best suited person among the employees of various devasthanams have to be selected. Here, according to them, the petitioner has arbitrarily chosen one person without any selection process whatsoever, which is not a transparent method of selection and therefore the appointment is bad. The 5th respondent would support the petitioner, as is only to be expected. The 6th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The 6th respondent is one of the persons included in the rank list prepared by the Commissioner for promotion to the post of Executive Officer and his rank therein is above that of the 5th respondent in the list. According to him, appointments can be made only from the rank list in accordance with the inter -se rank of the persons included therein.
(3.) THE issue involved in this writ petition narrows down to the question as to whether the petitioner has made the appointment of the 5th respondent as Executive Officer, in accordance with the Rule 4 (a) of the Rules made under Section 100 (x) of the Act. This is so because the respondents do not now dispute the power of the petitioner as hereditary trustee of the temple to appoint the Executive Officer insofar as Ext.P1 scheme has been approved by the 2nd respondent in accordance with the rules. Clause