G GANESHKUMAR Vs. TAMIL NADU THIRUKOIL THOZHILALARGAL UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are respondents 1 and 6 to 20 in W.P.No,3693 of 1997. Respondents 6 to 16 had preferred writ appeal 1497 of 2005, respondents 7 to 20, preferred writ appeal No.1561 of 2005 and the first respondent in W.P.No,3693 of 1997, challenging the vires of the common order passed in W.P.No,3693 of 1997, wherein, appointments were quashed, had preferred writ appeal No,968 of 2006. All the writ appeals are preferred against above said common order. Since the all the appeals are preferred against common orders passed in W.P.No,3693 of 1997, the said appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary and as culled out from the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the counter affidavits filed by the first and second respondents, are as follows:- For the sake of convenience, the array of parties as referred to in the writ petition is being adopted here also. THE first writ petitioner is Tamil Nadu Thirukkoil Thozhilalargal Union and the second writ petitioner is employed under Arulmighu Dhandapani Thirukoil, Thiruparankundram, Madurai, and also the member of first petitioner Union. It is averred in the writ petition that there was no uniform procedure with regard to the recruitment or promotion in respect of the vacancies in the temples administrated by the first respondent and they were governed by the various circulars from time to time. THE guidelines prescribed under the circulars are that concerned Executive Officers will call for applications from all eligible employees of all temples by displaying the notification in the Notice Board of the respective temple for a period of one month. THE proof of such Notification made in the Notice Board in all temples in every region had to be obtained by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner or Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Copies of the said Notification calling for application should be published in the office of the concerned local authority, Government Offices as well as in the District Employment Office. THE applications received in response to the Notification, have to be registered and applicants have to be called oral interview before the concerned Executive Officer of the temple or the Trustee of the temple Board and marks to be awarded on the oral interview. THEreafter, list of eligible/selected candidates has to be prepared and to be forwarded to the first respondent with specific recommendation of the interviewing authority. Only after the first respondent approved the appointments, the selected candidates can be appointed. However, according to the writ petitioners in the resent past, all the appointments more particularly appointments made to the vacancies in the post of the second respondent and third respondent temples viz., Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai and Arulmighu Subramaniya Swami Temple, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District have been made in gross violation of the above said procedure as contemplated in the circulars issued by the first respondent from time to time.

(3.) THE first respondent has filed its counter stating that the circular dated 4.8.1995 was issued only to remove the constant of the employees of temples to apply for the post and their application will have to be considered on merit only and the selection/appointment is not automatic. In so far as the contention raised by the writ petitioners that the earlier circulars have not been followed, the first respondent has stated that the earlier circulars have been cancelled vide circular dated 25.6.1996 issued by him. Further, according to the first respondent, that he has empowered to grant exemption of age to any person as provided under Rule 17 of the Rules framed under Section 116(2) read with Rule (xxiii) of the HR & CE Act and the writ petitioners have no locus standi to question the recruitment made from the open market. THE first respondent further averred that the selection and appointments of private respondents in the writ petition strictly in accordance with the procedure and on merits.