Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

N Srinivasan S/O Late K.Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Principal ... on 9 April, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2010 (3) AIR KAR R 862

Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

V.   fiLi.'»'e31'An:§<a«i':ésh

.,\\a~



:4  _
-= 3 f
f 9 .5

1 ' ,A 4;

R:  "$5,.
.\_ 
Nwww '

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA1,.C§R;';E~.,_

DATED THIS THE 97" my OF APRIL fj   

BEFORE   

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHANuswéNTAm%4eou§~A'RT} 

wmrr PETITION No.41s3;4/2oo7T (6°M;R/63   

wan P§TTTI(.3N~NC~L21V¥!0/20.0' -(amt:/c)

   
BETWEEN: _  

1. N.SrVi_n'i_yaSaU'  V,  _  
S/oglate 'E<J~g!aga%}aj _  "
Aged 3G'yea'Ts"'~-._"~    E
Work":ng«as Sam1_id_hi4.Pa";ri4c.ETaraka
Sri ChaTmuTndeShv&=ari T'¢-mple
Sri _Cham't:ndiHi~Els  
Mysore "

 V S/'0.V'C!jan'd2:a'snheka ra

 _ "A.ged' 3"2..yea Es

' Sannidhk' ~--§?arichara3<a
Sr': C-harriundeshwari Temple
Sri"Ch"amundi Hifis

V * : M_yso'ke



3.

(By Sri J.Prashanth, S.PrafuIla Chandra, Ad\;'s;',)-of   '

K.Raohakrishna Iyer

S/o.Iate Aaianahaiti Krishnappa
Aged 56 years

Working as Sannidhi Paricharaka
Sri Chamundeshwari Tempie

Sri Chamundi Hills

Mysore

AND:

1.

. 0,2 "

State of Karnataka 
Rep.by its  
Principai Secretary to Govt.  --
Revenue Dept. ,    ' "
MS Buiidings   _  
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi  
Bangalore--1   .  '

The Cornrnissioner for VE4~i'i'noq._:_"
ReEiVgEotis'eI..r}Stittjiti'ons'~am::' 
Cha':jital_cE~eVEnd--ayirment"-..,,__ - '
Aaioor Venkatarao Road 
Mahadeshwara B"i1auai'*sa '
Chamarajapety  A _ A "
Ban'ga.lore---1'8,__V'

.fI;he .s£E§{esL:'tive Officer
* yP'ata"ce' M urzraéfi Institutio ns
'Sr: Chamurnvdeshwari Tempie

D' A Sri chatr.aun'ai Hiils

i'9':--ysc»_'re v 

Deputy Commissioner/PresidenU

, Administrator

'Palace Muzrai Institutéons

 Mysore, Mysore District

.. PETITIONEFCS'  Q  + A 



 

5. N.Nagendra Dixit
S/o.iate Narayana Déxit
Aged 69 years
R/at.Chamunc¥i Hiiis
Mysore--570 010

6. i\i.Shashi Shekar Dixit
S/o.iate Nagendra Dixit
Aged 39 years   
R/at.Chamundi Hills 1

Mysore-570 01o  F{EiSPOi\i~£)V'Ei\iTSVV 

(By sr: N.B.Vishwanath,AGA'?o'rrR1to'f?,4 is 
Sri T.N.Raghupathy, AcEv., for_ 'R5 R6)'   ~ 

This writ petition is 226 and 227
of the Constitution ofH__In_cjia_, ,_prayVir'ig.'j_~.t'o quash the
impugned orderj'datecf_' 6,S';.20.Q6.vi'--whi'ci'~i. is produced as

Annexure~A, etc. f;,.-

WP.Noi21«4oV;V'2§Q§_';~  t 2
BETWEENA:'--_L* A '22'  

K.Sha'ni<ar

 - ,i2A9e«5..""342.yea_rs Z   ..... .. «

S/o.Krishrian1'u.rthy

 Vi.'.orTk'in_g'-.a_s" '.,'3~ois".'

Sr} 'C'_namu'rides'wari Temple
Chamundi Hii_i_s"

 _ Mysore-57.0-0'1O .. PETITIONER

R""'---.':i3vViSriifirikind Kamath - AIMT Legai, Adv.,)



in

AND:

1. State of Karnataka

Rep.by its

Principal Secretary to Govt.
Revenue Dept.

MS Buildings
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore-1

2. The Commissioner for Hindu
Religious Institutions and.' 
Charitable Endowment 
Aaloor Venkatarao Road
Mahadeshwara Bhav-ana
Chamarajapet ' 
Bangalore----18

3. Deputy Comn1issione'E¥curn~ .' 
Administra:tor"'t;;_-'  =i  _ --- 
Mysore l_?alace1ll.M:;.=zra.i:Ién'stite.tie'ns .
Mysore D_istric,t "    
Myso.ireH--_ '£70  .. "

4. The Executive Officer.  ,
Sri ChaVmulndeshW.al'i Te_n*aple
Sr; Charnundi.Hi~llsl~--,_ '
MySV0:A'e- 57C..QVi1O

.V v'E\l.gS?i'~a:shVi'shekarvfiiitit
'  'S--/o.~vl.ate:i\ia'gendra Dixit
-Aged. 4.0 V years

" . R/at.Craajm;3ndi Hills

M__yso_:*e--.Sf70 o1o .. RESPONDENTS

 Sri ,Vl\l';B.Vishwanath, AGA for R1 t R4
*  *  T.N,Raghupathy & Jaishree for C/RS)



This writ petition is fiied under Articles 226 and 
of the Constitution of India, praying to caii for the records
from the office of the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 pertaining
to the appointment of R5 as an Agamika of Sri
Chamundeswari Tempie, Charnundi Hiiis, Mysore, etc. 

These writ petitions having been heard and _
for orders, this day the Court made the foilowing':-~;_   '

Petitioners are ques.ti_oning.A"'--the _p,rd'er* 

appointment of Sri N.Shashis'ne.kar Dix~it',"(!--o;ereti:nVaVfter
called as xcontesting  6.V5A.2Ai306 as
'Agamika' of Sri,._Chami..uic_fes.i¥)ari  Chamundi

Hills, "ha'v~e'."-alsolsotighi: for quashing the -

Official ,,,.aémorafinLi;,;.n¢ir,,'_p,29,.r,:o.2oo7 issued by the

second .,respon,dent'-- vliheiteby the appointment of the

 r"es_pondVéntvis modified by declaring that he

is ia.p,povviinjte'dvV Agamika-cum--/lrchaka of the said

 _ tembie.  

New



Petitioner in WP.No.2140/2008 is serving as Jois,

whereas petitioners in WP.!\lo.484/2007 are serving-..as.v

Sanrzidhi Paricharakas. The contesting 

arrayed as respondent No.5 and'respori_4de_ii't'V.7l\io}'6'."_in

WP.No.2140/2008 and WP.No.48%¥,/,12:0r.l)7Vrespectiigleily;S'--:.

Heard the learned advoc'a»tes_,_vand' i--pe'rusved the

records including the 'lflgrecorfdsfi '4."'i§.i_otjL!ced by the
Executive Officer,'  V l 2 '

2.__S_riV  Chamundi Hills,

Mysore', is'Er'Mu.jz€E'E3l'"Il;l'S.f;l'ilJl:§On as notified by the

Mysore Hindu,» i'<el"i'g'iouis_.»rrinstitutions and Charitable

 Ac::,1,,927 (for short hereinafter referred

 to.Va's.the:"Act:"of 1927') and continues to be recognized

sorulrilderftlieV.i{arnatal<a Hindu Religious and Charitable

V7..a._'*..El'ldOW!}i€nlZS Act, 1997 (for short hereinafter referred

  the 'Act of 1997'). In the temple, there are





-7-

different categories of tempie servants, who provide

services, including Agamika, Archaka, Jois, 

Paricharaka, etc. Each servant of the  .

assigned certain roies as pier.__4Anne$(ure~W'.'_'_~{iri._

WP.No.484/2007). According to"r.th:é i petétiariérsi; 

category of the tempie  wiii .ha'\.I.eV-.go'flp'erform ' V

definite roie entrusteazflto gsu'ch_j'se'rv_an'ts,'"'e><cept for
certain extraordinary .A'_'iI,i*_1_'_'..other words,
the petitioners'conten:d   wiii not be
overlapping   the"'different categories
of   circumstances such

duties ovei.ria~p.'  V i

 is'u'3.;;-Thegggmaiingrievance of the petitioners is that

 of the contesting respondent as

  'Aganwikadisiubsequentiy as Agamika-cum~Ar'Chaka is

R""'~..V:g'i'i!egai,.. inasmuch as such appointment is made without

i._h\._i'iow'ing due procedure iaid down under the

JVNS



provisions of the Act of 1997 and the Karnataka Hindu
Religious and Charitabie Endowments Rules, 2002 (for

short hereinafter referred to as the 'Ruies").

4. Learned counsel appearing on 

petitioners contended:   

a) that the contesting re.s_'ponde_nt- 

appointed on the basis of thegualification:presrzribed,
but was appointed as'---.rigar'ngik:a treating the
post as heredéitary po'st..ff1  the Rules,

prescrib_es__.the..._guaiifita_tion for appointment of

Agamikaiianldli sin'ce'"the':"contesting respondent did not

 have_ireqiliisite"-qualifioation as prescribed under Rule

th:eA«.Ru:ie.s, the appointment is bad in the eye of

ia'w'."=*In'otheuruiwords, learned counsel appearing on

'wa_beha'if..of; the petitioners submits that Rules do not

A5fc_ont'e«mplate hereditary appointments (without

'   requisite qtiaiification);

V/<3



-9-
b) that Section 34 of the Act of 1927 provides

that no officer or servant in a Muzrai Institution shall

be deemed to descend by heredity rights unless it has

been conferred or recognized originally within-.a'n.e_

express stipulation to that effect in 

Competent Authority or has been _.hei.c_:i su:¢essi:yeiiy   

three generations of the same farnily'.'_'iri'fv 

the due legal Course and th»e.rjefore,A'V'th_e' aAp'po'i~nti'rre"nt

of the contesting respon.dent.rli's  the"e'yei~V'of law

inasmuch"'aisnthpethree'~'.t;'enera'tiio'ns of the contesting
responderntfdid  post of Agamika in due
legal coursefii 

r c')  educational certificate produced at

Arinéxurg§;l--'iitllriniélitwp.No.214o/2oo8), which discloses

 that thacontesting respondent has passed Praveena

  'Exavrnniation, is suspicious in nature and therefore the

h  --.."V"sarr}1e cannot be relied upon;

l*~">



-10-

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners relying upon the documentsujfat

Annexures*E, E1, F, G, J and K (in 

submits that the factum of conrtesting"'if'es.pQVn'd.ent.t,i_V

obtaining Praveena Degree is higtiiy     

d) that the subsequent-.,:_design'a.ti_o'n pf the
contesting respondentuas "--.Aggani'i'k'a{cLi,m-Archaka is
contrary to theScherne"of'  

Per  on behaif of the
contesti_ng_  the petitioners do not have

locus standiii to vfiie petitions as they are

 neit.h%er t'~rAgariw'!t<as nor Archakas working in Sri

 rchamundesifvari Temple. Petitioner in

 is Jois and the petitioners in

7._"WP.No.V?i»8?i»/i200? are Sannidhi Paricharakas. Hence,

A ":if"aAcco'rding to the contesting respondent, petitioners

'  have no locus standi to question the appointment of

H;



-31-

the contesting respondent as Agamika-cum-Archaka.

It is further submitted by him that the conte.st-i.n'g.,_

respondent has passed Praveena Examinati_oti..'"i'n'iV.'i,hé*i._._T'.

year 1991-92 itseif and howeve_r, _~thé*-ilflegriee

Certificate is issued in the §ieai?.A_Ai*~i994_V"'

Convocation was heid only 
of these Degrees. He_reiied**VvVi.iiipo'ni.__th.e'Atiocunwents
produced along with  in
support of his  of the
Institution,  respondent has
studied,:viivhah5 that the contesting

respondenityhas cori:piet'ed4'VPraveena Examination in

__._the  and that he got the Degree

 year 1994. It is further submitted

tha't.thie  respondent was appointed in piace

  his4"fatih.er"viz., Nagendra Dixit as Agamika as per

}\nne)&u_.re--R8 (in WP.No.2140/2008), and since then

V'  is continued as Agamika. He further reiies upon





-12-

the document at Annexure~R2 (in WP.No.2140/2008),

to contend that the great grand father of contesting

respondent vi2., Ekambar Dixit was not oniy doingV_j't.he_

job of Agamika, but aiso of Archaka 

successors aiso have performed .th»e...wor'i<"igogfaéirchaka  Ki'

along with the work of Agamika',  

other grounds, it was argttédg on 
contesting resporident,~.__for=i"d'isIrniVssai of'*th"e writ

petitions.

5.rTi'i'e.44,q.?3'i'ét~;6§5=l9i97.v'c'arn«e.v"into force w.e.f. the
year   petitions were filed

questio_ni.ngi"'th_'e.yaiid.ity~~~""iVof the said Act before this

'xi'"Cou'i'§t:"intciuding"W?';'No.36801/2003. In writ petition

and certain other writ petitions,

_  a intei**.i__m V_stayL*of the operation of certain provisions of

 1997, including Sections 9 to 16 of the Act

4'_"t'~__'o'fVV'i:«'«37, was granted by this Court. Such interim

gag./'\



-33-

order was continued tell the disposal of the writ

petitions. The writ petitions came to be dismissed"-..l5y_

the learned Single Judge on 9.9.2005. 

petitioners again filed writ appeaisrrrrbefore.Vth'erV'--l3'il}isi_'oAn  K'

Bench, including WA.No.3532/2(3OVS:;'.A.A_"

l\Eo.3532/2005 and certain  appeVavlsV}:~~ivi'n'ter:im
order relating to  of"'19'9§7 Act
continued to operate. ::'ap'pea;l_s"__were allowed
on 14.7.2oo5;:";et*_    A

 clear that during the
pendency of  and the writ appeals,

certain pro"»'isio.nVs.  Act of 1997, including

  to 16'"o'r'"'*the Act of 1997 (Chapter-III of the

Rules framed thereunder including

2  ChAa'pter~="£~\!.vl'.i'.i*of Rules were not operational.

ll."A4"--iJC.onseg'uentiy, the provisions of the Act of 1927 were

 1.__'h.oltiéng the field. Thus, the appointments should have

xii»



_§4_
been made in accordance with the Act of 1927.

Section 34 of the Act of 1927 reads thus:-

Section .34: N9 Temgle

Officer or Servants in a Muzrai 

 

Institution :9 g hs.=redita';'_'.gi"»'  A
exc at under  cer:£'ain._  A

circumstances- No  offi"cer oer*'V A A

 

servant in a Muzrai Inivstifttution  y
be deemed to destcendibyifheiéfedyitary"" 
rights uniess itiiihes'  
o r recog_n*iz_ed i~'o'rig:i'ne_i':y:-. . _   en

express"   to  e'rTe'ct in

vi.{riti_ngijA'v'ibyV--a_::'Condpete.nt Authority or
he's__b'een .hei.iLdw.st:-c_:'c'es'siveiy by three
_.gener'etion_'yof°=_the same famiiy in

i.f_'"«:.9gi_ccessio'n' intthve due iegai Course."

E"'~Frorti«7'."sthe"aforementioned provision it is clear

':ir~.._?__Tt'hat ti1..ev'"*{Jt1"icer or Servant in the Mnzrai Institution

  "c"euid'*~«_.descend by hereditary right if the same has

it  successively held by three generations of the

\i._;%



same family in succession in legal course. In this

context, Sri Aravind Kamat, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners submits 

successive generations of the contestihg~i----respontdent  

did not hold the post of Agamikatin iegsaicaurseia

the appointment of fath_er__ oi?'-rthe *'v:c'oii'it6.$ti_i31gv%

respondent was subject to appp.rxov_ai~i.of th'e«depa_i'tment
and therefore it was not.a'»__perirn'an_e.nitiappointment
and consequentiy the contesting:jr.espohii"ent could not
have been   
7.vi".A'ri.nexuVre¥;_R5'vwproduced by the contesting

respondVenti"a!ohg'with the statement of objections in

I-The'V\!F7'Eio.4.84/"2Q07His'"a'n Inamdar Barbard Register. The

'u'sa'rn_ieVViis.:jof.rt'hei~y'ear 1911. The said document pertains

  _ to Sri_ Ctganfzdhdeswari Temple. At S|.No.8 of the said

VVdocVIJ_meht, it is clearly mentioned that Sri Ekambar

  appointed as Agamika and he will perform the

\*»r*



-;7_

Agamikafiraveena Examination 'en II Class in the year

1970. It is needless to observe that Nagenclra 

the father of the contesting respondent; 

appointment of Nagendra Dixtt vviasin-.   his  

father Narayan Dixét as per:__ 

WP.No.2140/2008), dated 8  19i9e,p   "said
appointment order reveals  of
Nagendra Dixit is w.e.f.:_  scale of
Rs.300/- to It therein
that the   to approval of

the ManaglngiAVVCemrhitte.e';-....__ « '

8.._The"recor.d.s m_aE'ru'tained by the Chief Executive

 ?--."{pr'oduced" """ "by the learned Government

xi/-'v.clVv.,or:Vat.e%_§'=._c!'u'rin:g the course of arguments) of Sri

8  _ ChaI'nun;1esv";alr:' Temple at page No.10 reveal that the

:c'e.rti.fEcate;was issued as far back as on 18.11.1988 by

:;_.th.e"Executive Officer of Sri Chamundeswari Temple to

gs



The document at Page No.6 of the said records,

dated 16.2.1999 is the memo issued to 

Dixit by the Executive Officer. In the said__rnen1jor..iVt"big. it

specifically mentioned that  

performing the duties of Agamfka a'sg_i}vell as.'..Zir:chal{a*..l.''i 9'

9. Learned counsei appeVa~ring_VVfor"'oetitiolners
reiying upon certain  Anhei<ure~B,
submits that the  of the
contesting       full--fiedged

appointimentfg'bui:.__::'li.«Ja's.:_"'s..u_bject to approvai of the

Managing  as there is nothing on

_..V.recori:¥.:'to~ show-~.tVhvat the abprovai was subsequently

A"._Vg»ran--t_edL'lfoirifthe appointment of father of the

contestinvgeifesoondent by the Managing Committee,

 same canrnovt be said to legal.





-20-

The said submission cannot be accepted,

inasmuch as the provisions of the Act of 1927 do not

anywhere reveai that the appointment can be..jm:aofe.Vv

temporariiy or permanent or subject to 

the Managing Committee, More over--,,.   if

on record to show that the  

Committee was not granted to:ti1.e aopo_i'ritm_:en"tg'uof' the
father of the contestving.A_ TheVV"EX"ecutive
Officer of Sri Chamun;1"esu(a.??i_'Vf"iiern.o'iei'V_~has not come
out with a cas'e4"fih.iQ_t the a§p};;o"i'ntrnen.tii.Tof father of the
contesting__ .ft'efs'po_n'deri§~~A-..i§iagendra Dixit was not

approved'A.®:C'3n the  the executive officer of

the tempie hfastcorriesponded with Nagendra Dixit

A°.__trea~ting_A_'hinn'~~.a_s Agamika throughout. Hence, the

ap*oo'iVhtm'ehjt o=fi\iagendra Bixit and his continuation in

 Xthe saiiaofrifce till 2005, cannot be said to iiiegai,





-21-

10. Contesting respondent was appointed in the

place of his father Nagendra Dixit in the year 2006 as

is ciear from Annexure--D, and the appointment ofhtjhe

contesting respondent was treated as 

appointment. The same cannot 'be >said_rt'o',iii'eg'aVl,   

inasmuch as three successive ;":.get1'e:eratiions_:"of" ft~héi:_:

contesting respondent had  post 

iegal course.

As aforementioned,.:'Ei<a'mi;iar'."£§i§ci.ty."(great grand
father of'"the;':;cont.esti'n.Vg*--.vfrespowndent), Narayan Dixit
(grand  respondent), Nagendra

Dixit _(_.f_athei*~~of tVh'veAcont'esting respondent) had held

"h'*«Sa;d~-'fa__§ostV. prior  appointment of the contesting

2'respon*dén_At;'  the aforementioned facts, it is dear

if  _ that"-..th__reevu§'~»'generations prior to the contesting

 had iegaiiy heid the post of Agamika.

4'.';g~_dT'herefore, there is no violation of Section 34 of the

key



-3;

Act of 1927. Consequently, the appointment of the
contesting respondent as Agamika cannot be said-.__to

beinegah

11. The submission of theypetitioners:th.a't': t'_'he.t.:  it

contesting respondent does 'not1'_A_'ih:av1e.

qualification of "Praveena".._vg:"'t~Q be, apgpvointédw "as
Agamika, also cannotvpey acce'p'te"d--. "'Anne>a<'ure~.E5, E1, F
and G relied upon by theApetiVti:on_ers"_'dVo'~__not disclose

anything coni't'i'-any to 3; thewA""c'ase.___:Vi'of contesting

responden't,--..iAna's.tri§ti'ch"*--as--. not reveal that the
contesting" ._  failed in Praveena

ExamAin_ation".~i V_Vi~ioVVvi;.ey'eir',*the letters of the Principal of

'xdthe5[_"Go\.rern.menVt""""i'-'lVaharaja Sanskrit College at

 prima facie reveal that the relevant

$

t  _ recordsi._ar'e;'.?not forthcoming in the College during the

 ;re.ie\{anti--* time showing the requisite qualification of

'.'gi'~_.c'qVntesting respondent as Praveena. They further

M



223-

reveai that even if the contesting respondent is

deciared as having passed in Praveena Examinati-on,

the same wouid be invalid. These Eetters af_€3.__"§~ssu«'edV"'-«V

by the Principal of the Coiiege on 26y.y3.20fl07_st.ahaif

20.4.2007. These letters ruyihiiiiieehttary._.teyp.the}

documents at Annexure-R06 ._(in 

produced along with the   by
the contesting respovnj-d.é'n_t.".V:Vy  dated
18.6.2007. It-is  the very
Prénci pal of   M__aijt3'tauj:a""Sanskrit Coitege

to Execdtix/__e. 1C)'ifi;:«er"of'*8»_:'i-.Cha'mundeswari Temple. In

the said"'tEettevr,"'--Etiedis':""t:iEearly mentioned that the

 contesytivng respondent was admitted to

AV'.__Shait<agarna,on3yara Course in the year 1985-86. He

studi'eid ;iVnV"--tih__ey'I=.said Course during the years 1985-86,

 1987-88 (three years). Thereafter he

A ":a'_p.p:e'a«red for examination in the year 1987--88 and has

'V,.._1fipa'Ssed Pravara Examination (Agama Part). In the

év./x.



-24_

year 1988-89 the contesting respondent sought

admission to Praveena, two years' Course. 

admitted on 19.8.1988. The admrssiogif

contesting respondent was approved~.i.n   it

by the Karnataka State VAga>Arn_§i'.A_A'vEduéiaiioln . 

Examination Advisory Board';--i..':Mysore'.   year
1989-90 the contest'fn.g  appe'ared for
Shaivagamapraveena   year, he
passed Aganja__':  he appeared
for  Part. He has
faiied   inwiithat particular year.

Subsequentlgyi,  1991-92 again the

 contestinig resporfient: appeared for the Literature Part

AflgofjPraveeria:Ex_amination and has passed. Pursuant

th'ere--to,x'V 'is'£given marks card as well as the

'.VCert§tic.aite  Annexure~--H. The convocation in respect

9' 'i~.9ofn_A9gan1Va Degrees was heid in the year 1994. Since

'  Convocation retating to Agama Examinations was

W



-26-

12. The report of the Secretary of the Karnataka

State Agama Education and Examination Adt:iso:ri,!_

Board, Mysore, submitted in the Convocationlhteldji

the year 1993--94 relating to 

Sanskrit College, Agama 

by the contesting respondeVntvfs4:"~counsel._a!.on_g"vviVt'il' the
memo. The said repioyg  The
same clearly reveals  respondent
had passed in the
year   candidates who
have  the very year and

the subseouent'-- also found in the said

 repolfjti  Suthgreport of 1994, that too of the

 »a;u'thori,sed«offitzer of the examination Advisory Board,

  of booklet, cannot be doubted.

 ..  z1i;~--i:s relevant to note that this Court summoned

"then Principal of the Government Maharaja

V



-93-

he was imposed costs of Rs.S,000/--~ (Rupees five

thousand only) on 6.4.2010. These facts

clearly go to show that the certificate at 

dated 26.3.2007 is created withvatrmala it

in collusion with the then Princ'i«pa'iA_iof 

Thus, no value can be attacvhied, to the *ce'i:tEVFic'ate'V' at

Annexure----J, dated 26.3...2fi00?'."""' * 

13. The ijegree  clearly
reveals that"'t§h_eV the contesting
respondent  Examination since
the  ' has passed the said

examin_ation«.in"EI_CiaAe:s."~~--'in view of the same, no value

 attached"to"'th'e documents at Annexures-3 and

 petitioners. Thus, it is ampiy clear

  that---..__V theiocontesting respondent had requisite

ii"4Futguaiificatiion of Agama Praveena Degree at the time of

   pipointment.

xv



-29-

14. This Court does not find any iiiegaiity in the

order dated 29.10.2007, by which the appointmeyntbof

the contesting respondent was ordered to  H

as Agamika and Archaka. As aforementi_o'hedviValsvi"i'iarV--v..' 

back as in the year 1911, the  

the contesting respondentV.i'vyi_z., lE.k'ambar.v--'V--i_)'l§§it who 

was appointed as Agarnika waxsvalso engtrusted  the;

duties of Archaka.  lmie'a.r'1s',:'~Ekambar Dixit
though was appointed.ia§,4ga:n;ka".was".performing the

duties of ~aj_i:so=.._ ._1l~Sipbsecj'ilently aiso the

descenzgiantsioif:VEkamb.ar=.'vvDixi_t viz., Narayan Dixit and

Nagendralbjiixiti  the post which was held

 by Eitambar   is not in dispute that Narayan

libijxitwialsappointed in place of his father, on

herleditavrfil..bAasis. So also Nagendra Dixit was

I_appoin..t"evd  piace of his father on hereditary basis.

V' ':CfWVh'ichy irieans, Na:-ayan Dixit had inherited the post

 the duties of Ekambar Dixit, so aiso Nagendra

V



-30-

Dixit inherited the post and duties held by Narayan

Dixit. Therefore, it is clear that three successive

generations prior to the contesting respondent.'vj'gjd.i.d-...._T'.

perform the duty of Archaka al_s.o.__ The"au'th'o'rEt'Eesiu,L

concerned, based on the fact, sii'tu'~atio'n:V'lt'h.é7--i

material on record, have  
that the ancestors ofvthze coV.n*te:s't*i--ng-»c._resp'onde.nt were
discharging the  Therefore,
second respo.nden.t revising the
appointment' respondent as
  of the order at

Annexuredvll, dateci céc9.1'olLf2oo7 in WP.No.2140/2008.
15, As"co_rJid..be seen from Anne><ure--W produced

:.':'rl'E1 pyuf;N..o..48éi/2dVOV7fcertain works are assigned to

  most learned and highly qualified

'  _amohg the ivhdoor temple servants is Agamika. He will

h"ave_to. 'complete Agama Praveena Course. But as far

¥\;~/S



-3]-

as Archaka is concerned, he will have to complete only

Agama Pravara Course. The course Agama Prayeena

will have to be done only after completion.n:f"A'ga:rna-.._._T'_

Pravara Course. Since Agama Prayeena ist"l1.e.';vh'i'gh'estvt-vi "'

educational qualification and as :';h.é'-if

prominent post among theindoorA"'E""e_mpVle:._:'A$i:e'r'v'alits,
he is assigned vwith °wori<.doing
Abhishekaparayana wilthin' v"sa"::'.itarium. In
the case of exigyeiyncieslyl  to the
post may  duties. As

aforementioned,VVEyi§am't::a'r',yDtxit, the great grand father

was assigned. the Archaka aiso, though he

 was agppointed"'asV:2lgainika. The said hereditary office

 jcontinfued.successively till the appointment of the

contestinVgV".i%es'p.o'ndent. In view of the same, it cannot

[be sa'Ed.. that the contesting respondent is not entitled

   nd'o"i--the"duties of Archaka also.

is



-32-

16. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the

learned advocate appearing on behalf 

contesting respondent that he is not 

salary for the post of Archaka. O_n....th_e ot'her'~h'_a.nd:,  '*

duties of Archaka are beingtpe'_rforn*ie'd' 

contesting respondent in pLrs'u.ance"of 
office held by him. i
17. Sri Aravind  counsel

appearing for__the_pet:;iAt'io'n_e:rs..:Vdraws i:§he attention of

the Court to;3th.eii;:.;defi1ni~tvi'on"'*e.~S.jqrchaka under sub--~
section(2) for sealantziestiie Act of 1997.

F_romV'i:--he'vsaid d.efin~'i'tion, it is clear that Archaka

""«.inclu:d'es;_..,:Pa5iari "or -------- other person who performs or

"=:_o'nVdLi'cts-.ar&haii.a, puja or other rituals. The words

'other rit-Li'_ai'l:s'iV should be read in consonance with

V'~.__ar§:hanav.Va3'nd puja. It should not be meant to include

 _the--»p.erson who is bringing water to clean the deity,

ibis



-33-
cleaning fioor, up to sanctum sanatorium, etc. The

words 'other rituals' have to be meant to inc|uvde.._:th_e

work akin to archana and puja. Agamika does"pn'jvaI: _

head of the worshipping team._jfhereforeii)égarni'kat:vi'  

cannot be restrained from doing 'puj;~f3"or arr:h'a_na;' 

Be that as it may, as"aforen'i'enticn_ed:iAtjij.a...great 

grand father of the contesltivng'.._,gArespondenit was
assigned with the dut'i'es_o'oF'aaI'so. Since the

grand father and -fathzeri;ofV:::th:e"~V:c'ont'esti'ng respondent

and thereafter.':'*Ii;h.e*'--.'.'»co'nte'svting respondent have
inherited the post'«.si'nc'es.._:th_ree generations, it cannot

be said that.th'e .co.nte_sti~--n'g respondent cannot perform

   ..... 

the above, this Court does' not find anyy_"g'roLinud'1__tointerfere with the appointment of the Vii'-..nicontesting respondent Sri N.Shashidhar Dixit. Hence, 'xi/5 -34- writ petitions faii and accordingly same __are dismissed.

*ck/-