R. CHANDRAKALA Vs. M. SANKARANARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fourth and third respondents in the Writ Petition have come forward with these Writ Appeals aggrieved against the order of this Court cancelling the appointment for the post of Nathaswaram Musician. The fourth respondent, the selected candidate and the third respondent, the temple have filed separate Writ Appeals.

(2.) SINCE both the appeals arising out of one and the same issue both the appeals are taken up together and a common judgment is delivered by consent of both parties.

(3.) THE main grievance of the first respondent was that the second notification was issued only with the specific agenda to select the forth respondent so that she could be eligible to apply since she was not having a degree from the Government college. Further, one more ground was raised by the petitioner that the fourth respondent in W.A.No.773 of 2008 is not eligible as she has not attained 25 years of age at the time of selection. In this connection, he would rely upon Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Institutions (Officers and Servants) Service Rules, 1964. Therefore, he has challenged the selection process. But when we read Rule 5 that will apply only to non-hereditary office which means its trustees, not to Nathaswaram vidhvan who is an employee. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be sustainable.