ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER I EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARULMIGU VANA BADRAKALIAMMAN TEMPLE COIMBATORE DISTRICT Vs. T KUMARESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vana Badrakaliamman Temple, THEkkampatti, has filed the above Writ Appeal, aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge passed in W.P. No. 19988 of 1998, dated 31.8.1999.

(2.) THE third respondent is the heriditary trustee of the said temple. With a view to fill up the permanent vacancy of Poosari of the said temple, made publication in the newspaper. "Dhina Thanthi", Coimbatore Edition, dated 21.11.1997, calling for applications for six vacancies in the said temple including the said vacancy for the post of Poosari. THE Writ Petitioner made an application for appointment of Poosari for the said temple. Interview was conducted on 13.5.1998. After considering the merits of al l the candidates who attended the interview, the trustee passed resolution on 19.5.1998 selecting the Writ Petitioner for that post. But the third respondent did not issue the appointment order on account of the objections raised by the second respondent, as the Writ Petitioner is not qualified to be appointed to the post of Poosari. It seems that the third respondent by his letter dated 21.10.1998 sought for permission from the second respondent to appoint the Writ Petitioner as Poosari. THE second respondent was not inclined to approve the appointment. In the letter dated 17.11.1998, the second respondent denied such permission, on the basis of the circulars issued by him dated 22.5.1992 and 16.6.1993. So, the Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 19988 of 1998, challenging the legality of the said letter dated 17.11.1998 sent by the Second respondent-commissioner. THE learned Judge after elaborately considering the issues raised before him held that the said letter dated 17.11.1998 cannot be sustained, and quashed the same, and also directed the third respondent to appoint the Writ Petitioner as an Archaka within one month from the date of the order.

(3.) EVEN if trustees appoint disqualified persons br the persons who should not have been appointed, the Commissioner can always exercise his powers under Section 21 of the said Act to set aside such illegal orders. When the statute prescribes such a procedure for appointment and rectification of the illegal orders if any, the Commissioner by way of administrative orders cannot insist the trustees to get prior approval before making appointment. So, the learned Judge is correct in holding that the impugned order dated 17.11.1998 cannot be sustained in law. The learned Judge has also relied on the order of J. Kanakaraj, J. as he then was, in W.P. No. 2967 to 2972 of 1996 dated 21.8.1996, in K.S. Rajashanmugavel, Sri Mariammal Temple, Samayapuram and others v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.