WA/1527/2024 of SRI GIRISHA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 25 September 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

These appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 07.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.48717/2019 c/w W.P. No.17560/2022. The fourth respondent in these appeals

HC-KAR

was the petitioner in W.P.No.48717/2019, while the appellants herein were the petitioners in W.P.No.17560/2022.

2. The fourth respondent contended that the selection conducted for appointment to the post of Assistant non- Hereditary Archakas in the third respondent- Temple was against the provisions of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 ("the 1997 Act" for short) as well as the Rules made there under, and that the said appointments are liable to be set aside.

3. The appellants herein had on the other hand, challenged the show-cause notice issued to them by the Commissioner of the Department of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, seeking cancellation of their appointments.

4. The learned Single Judge considered the provisions of the 1997 Act and Rule 12 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, ("the 2002 Rules" for short) and found that the reservation policy is liable to be followed in the case of appointment of Assistant non- Hereditary Archakas as well. In the said circumstances, the

HC-KAR

learned Single Judge directed that the entire process of appointment of Assistant non-Hereditary Archakas and temple servants have to be done afresh, in accordance with law.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that only a show cause notice had been issued to the appellants, who had been appointed pursuant to an interview conducted in the year 2018. It is submitted that the show-cause notice dated 25.08.2022 had stated that there was non-adherence to the reservation policy as mandated under Rule 12 of the 2002 Rules.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that, if the reservation policy is to be applied to the appointment of temple servants, it has to be applied taking note of all the posts in the different categories, and that the reservation policy cannot be applied only to the posts of Assistant non-Hereditary Archakas.

7. It is further submitted that the proviso to Rule 12(1) of 2002 Rules specifically provides that the reservation policy is to be subject to Section 58 of the 1997 Act. Section 58 of the 1997 Act reads as follows:

HC-KAR

"58. Commissioner, etc., to observe appropriate customs, usage’s and practices.-The Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioner and every other person exercising powers or performing functions under the Act shall not interfere with, and shall observe the customs, usages, ceremonies and practices appropriate to the Notified Institutions or Declared Institution in respect of which such powers are exercised."

8. It is therefore contented that, it is only on a finding that there is no custom or usage to the contrary in the temple in question that the reservation policy could have been made applicable to the posts of Assistant non-Hereditary Archakas.

9. It is further contented that the fourth respondent was also a general candidate and could not have maintained a complaint with regard to non-following of the reservation policy after having participated in the selection process.

10. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, would contend that Rule 12 of 2002 Rules specifically provides for filling up vacancies of Assistant non-Hereditary Archakas, including temple servants either on permanent basis

HC-KAR

or in any other manner and provides that the Chairman of the Committee or the Executive Officer, shall intimate the vacancies in different categories to the respective prescribed Authorities.

11. It is contended that the vacancies in different categories would therefore mean only the different categories of posts of Assistant non-Hereditary Archakas, including temple servants and therefore, that the reservation policy as provided in the 2002 Rules would have to be made applicable to such appointments, unless an exemption could be carved out in terms of Section 58 of the 1997 Act.

12. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that, pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, fresh notifications were issued on 31.10.2025 and 06.12.2025 and that in the said selection also, there were no reserved category candidates available for appointment.

13. It is further submitted that, in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 20.12.2024, the further proceedings for appointments have not been made.

HC-KAR

14. We also notice that there is no appearance on behalf of the fourth respondent since 04.07.2025, despite the matter having been posted and argued.

15. Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that Rule 12 of the 2002 Rules specifically makes the procedure for selection, including the application of the rules of reservation, subject to Section 58 of the 1997 Act.

16. It is the specific case of the appellants before us that the post of Assistant non-Hereditary Archakas in the third respondent-Temple is one which is being filled up in accordance with the traditions and customs of the temple by candidates belonging to the open category and that the said practice therefore requires to be recognised by the respondents.

17. It is submitted that all that had been done was the issuance of show-cause notice and the appellants had approached the Court directly without furnishing their reply to the show-cause notice.

18. It is further submitted that the selection process had been conducted with the approval of the Commissioner of

HC-KAR

the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department and the Agama Pandit was also a part of the selection committee.

19. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the fourth respondent was also not a person who belonging to the reserved category, the entire selection process could not have been set aside on the complaint made by the fourth respondent.

20. It is submitted that the question as to whether there is an exemption available to the Assistant non-Hereditary Archakas in the third respondent-Temple is a question of fact, which ought to have been considered by the Commissioner of the Karnataka Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Further, the power of the Commissioner to issue such show-cause notice after having approved the Notifications for selection is also raised by the appellants.

21. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the facts placed on record, we are of the opinion that, the setting aside the entire selection process at the instance of a person who was not entitled to apply under the reserved

HC-KAR

category, who had participated in the selection process, was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, we are of the opinion that it is for the appellants to submit their reply to the show-cause notice and to establish before the respondents that they are entitled to the appointments granted to them and to continue in such posts.

22. In the above view of the matter, the following:

ORDER

I. These appeals are allowed-in-part.

II. The judgment of the learned Senior Judge setting aside the entire selection process is set at naught. However, it is made clear that it is for the appellants to submit their replies to the show-cause notice, and it is for the second respondent to take an appropriate decision on the replies so submitted, after hearing the appellants and taking note of the subsequent developments as well.

HC-KAR

All contentions of the parties are left open.

Pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of.

Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.P.VIVEKANANDA) JUDGE

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4