Madras High Court
WP/10782/2024 of B.CHANDRASEKARAN Vs THE JOINT COMMISSIONER on 16 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP Nos. 10782, 10785 and 10788 of 2024
B.Chandrasekaran
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, No.20 Chinnamuthu Street, Perundurai Road, Erode 11.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Jawans Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001.
3. The Executive Officer
Arulmigu Selleswara Vagaiyara Temple,
Arulmigu Bhatrakaliamman Temple,
Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District.
4. A.K.Senthilkumar
5. M.Karthi @ Kalidass
6. S.Saravanan
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records of the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 14.09.2023 in proceedings No.
Na.Ka.No. 4675/ 2021/ A1 and impugned order of the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No. Nil dated 06.08.2019 and to quash the same as without jurisdiction, illegal, incompetent, non-application of mind, and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to forward the petitioner application dated
02.05.2019 for an appointment as a Pujari to the 2nd respondent office and there by directing 2nd respondent to get approval from the Commissioner of HR and CE, Chennai within the time fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.Raghavachari,
Senior Counsel
Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Veerabathra Prasanth,
Government Advocate (HR & CE)
(for R1 to R3)
Mr.N.Velmurugan,
(for R4 to R6)
WP No. 10785 of 2024
B.Sathiyaseelan
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, No.20 Chinnamuthu Street, Perundurai Road, Erode 11.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Jawans Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001.
3. The Executive Officer
Arulmigu Selleswara Vagaiyara Temple,
Arulmigu Bhatrakaliamman Temple,
Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District.
4. A.K.Senthilkumar
5. M.Karthi @ Kalidass
6. S.Saravanan
7. The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34.
8. The Committee Of Trustees/Thakkar
Rep by President, Arulmigu Selleswara
Vagaiyara Temple,
Arulmigu Bhatrakaliamman Temple,
Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District. (R7 and R8 are impleaded as per Order dated 06.06.2024 in WMP.No.12930 of2024 in WP.No.10785 of 2024)
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records of the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 14.09.2023 in proceedings No.
Na.Ka.No. 4675/ 2021/ A1 and impugned order of the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No. Nil dated 06.08.2019 and the impugned order of appointment of the 4th respondent in proceedings No.MuMu No.84878/1991 dated 07.04.1992 passed by the 7th respondent and the impugned order of appointment of the 6th respondent in Resolution No.Nil dated 10.03.2000
passed by the 8th respondent and quash the same as without jurisdiction, illegal, incompetent, and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to forward the petitioner application dated 30.04.2019 for an appointment as a Pujari to the 2nd respondent office and there by directing 2nd respondent to get approval from the Commissioner of HR and CE, Chennai.(Prayer amended as per order dated 06.06.2024 in WMP.No.12935 of 2024 in WP.No.10785 of 2024).
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.Raghavachari,
Senior Counsel
Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Veerabathra Prasanth,
Government Advocate (HR & CE)
(for R1 to R3, R7 & R8)
Mr.N.Velmurugan,
(for R4 to R6)
WP No. 10788 of 2024
G.Mohankumar
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Joint Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, No.20 Chinnamuthu Street, Perundurai Road, Erode 11.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Jawans Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001.
3. The Executive Officer
Arulmigu Selleswara Vagaiyara Temple,
Arulmigu Bhatrakaliamman Temple,
Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District.
4. A.K.Senthilkumar
5. M.Karthi @ Kalidass
6. S.Saravanan
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records of the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 14.09.2023 in proceedings No.
Na.Ka.No. 4675/ 2021/ A1 and impugned order of the 3rd respondent in
Proceedings No. Nil dated 06.08.2019 and to quash the same as without jurisdiction, illegal, incompetent, non-application of mind, and consequently directing the 3rd respondent to forward the petitioner application dated 30.06.2019 for an appointment as a Pujari to the 2nd respondent office and there by directing 2nd respondent to get approval from the Commissioner of HR and CE, Chennai within the time fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.Raghavachari,
Senior Counsel
Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel
For
Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Veerabathra Prasanth,
Government Advocate (HR & CE)
(for R1 to R3)
Mr.N.Velmurugan,
(for R4 to R6)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER
The present Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the third respondent and the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the first respondent.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners’ grandfathers and great-grandfather worked as Pujaris in Arulmigu Bhatrakaliammman Temple, one of the very ancient temples at Anthiyur. Subsequently, the paternal uncle of the petitioner in W.P.No.10788 of 2024 and the fathers of the other writ petitioners worked as Pujaris during the year 1952. He would further submit that, the petitioners have been performing Pujariship since the years 2007 and 2014 respectively. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners had submitted applications to the second respondent through the third respondent. However, instead of forwarding the applications to the second respondent, the third respondent passed the impugned order without jurisdiction.
2.1. It is also his contention that the said applications were addressed only to the second respondent. Therefore, the third respondent ought not to have passed the impugned order, instead, ought to have forwarded the applications to the second respondent. Though the learned Senior Counsel has raised various contentions with regard to the appointment of the sixth respondent and other aspects, he would restrict the relief sought for to the extent that the order passed by the third respondent, without forwarding the applications to the second respondent, is liable to be interfered with.
3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first to third respondents would contend that the very prayer/request made in the applications submitted by the petitioners, dated 02.05.2019, 30.04.2019 and 30.06.2019, is for appointment based on succession. However, under Section 55(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the HR & CE Act’ for short) no person shall be entitled to seek appointment to any vacancy on the ground that he is next in the line of succession to the last holder of the office. Since the very prayer made by the petitioners is contrary to Section 55(2) of the HR & CE Act, the impugned order, though passed by the third respondent, would in no way cause prejudice to the interests of the petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.
5. On a close reading of the petitioners’ applications dated 02.05.2019, 30.04.2019 and 30.06.2019, it appears that they seek appointment on the basis of the approval that may be granted by the Commissioner to enable them to be posted as Pujaris in the Temple. The learned Government Advocate would contend that the said claim cannot be sustained in view of Section 55(2) of the HR & CE Act, which is clear to the effect that there cannot be any appointment based on the succession to the office held by the last holder. However, while considering the petitioners’ requests dated 02.05.2019, 30.04.2019 and 30.06.2019, it is evident that the said applications were addressed to the second respondent through the third respondent.
6. At the first blush, on a perusal of the petitioners’ representations dated 02.05.2019, 30.04.2019 and 30.06.2019, it may not be possible to infer that the applications were addressed to the second respondent. However, on a close reading of the said applications, there is a reference to the fact that the same were forwarded through proper channel. Further, in the second page of the letters, the petitioners have also referred the authority to whom he addressed the letter, namely, the Assistant Commissioner.
7. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate, in all fairness, would submit that the appointing authority is not the third respondent. If that being so, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel, the third respondent ought to have simply forwarded the requests of the petitioners to the second respondent, and the second respondent only should have considered the same in accordance with law.
8. In the case in hand, the third respondent, without forwarding the applications to the second respondent, has considered the same on his own. As already submitted, since he is not the appointing authority, the rejection made by him cannot be termed as an order passed by the competent authority. In view of the above legal and factual position, this Court finds force in the contention of the petitioners and is inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 06.08.2019. Consequently, the order passed by the first respondent dated 14.09.2023 is also liable to be interfered with.
9. Though the petitioners have raised various other grounds, since they have restricted their claim that the impugned orders were passed by an incompetent authority, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders. The second respondent is directed to consider the respective petitioners’ representations dated 02.05.2019, 30.04.2019 and 30.06.2019 according to its own merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
10. In the result, these Writ Petitions are partly allowed as indicated above. No costs. 16-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV
To
1. The Joint Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, No.20 Chinnamuthu Street, Perundurai Road, Erode 11.
2. The Assistant Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Jawans Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Gandhiji Road, Erode 638 001.
3. The Executive Officer Arulmigu Selleswara Vagaiyara Temple, Arulmigu Bhatrakaliamman Temple, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District.
4. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, No.119, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34.
5. The Committee Of Trustees/Thakkar Rep by President, Arulmigu Selleswara Vagaiyara Temple, Arulmigu Bhatrakaliamman Temple, Anthiyur Taluk, Erode District.
C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP Nos. 10782, 10785 and 10788 of 2024 16-09-2026