K JITHESH Vs. MALABAR DEVASWAM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are being considered together, not because the issues raised therein are identical but because it involves controversies between the same set of parties relating to the administration of certain temples under the same management.

(2.) Writ petition No.15779 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a member of a family, by name the "Kuppathode Tarwad". According to him, the scheme earlier settled by the Deputy Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board, in O.A. No. 12 of 1974, relating to the management of the Sree Pulpally Devaswaom of Wynad District, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P1, was modified at the behest of the then hereditary trustee through Ext.P4 order. The petitioner alleges the modification made to the scheme through Ext.P4 took away certain privileges and benefits reserved to the members of the Tarwad and he asserts that this was illegal and impermissible on the specific ground that the erstwhile hereditary trustee did not have the competence to concede to such modification or to represent the family in making such a request for modification. We do not deem it necessary to go into the details of these allegations contained in the writ petition since we are aware that under Section 61 of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act ('H.R. & C.E. Act' for short) the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy of moving a statutory appeal before the competent authority against the order which is impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) As regards W.P(C). No.2482 of 2017 is concerned, the said writ petition is also filed by the same writ petitioner who was, on the orders of the hereditary trustee, initially appointed as an Executive Officer of the Sree Pulpally Devaswom as a trainee. The petitioner says that after the completion of two months of training, he was offered permanent appointment and that as per the terms of the aforementioned modified scheme, the hereditary trustee is empowered to appoint an Executive Officer for the temple, adverting to and assessing the qualifications of the candidates. According to the petitioner, since he is a member of the Tarwad, he is entitled for a priority for such employment under the scheme. The petitioner's grievance appears to be that after he was so appointed, he was transferred to the Sree Purakkadi Devaswom, which is a sub temple under the management of the same hereditary trustee, as an Executive Officer in order to manage its affairs including to generate requisite revenue and funds for its proper sustenance. The petitioner says that even though Ext.P3 order would show that his transfer was ordered pursuant to his request, this is not correct because it was in fact the hereditary trustee himself who had wanted him to be transferred. The petitioner submits that after he was so transferred to the Purakkadi Devaswom, he had been unable to draw salary from the said Devaswom, because it does not have the resources to honour such commitments and therefore, he now prays for an order from this Court to the competent Authorities to have him transferred back to the Pulpally Devaswom.