Karnataka High Court
Gangadhar Gowda vs Executive Officer on 27 August, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.NO.36678/2018 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
GANGADHAR GOWDA
S/O ODIYAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT SOUTHADKA HOUSE
KODDADA, D.K.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SOUTHADKA SHRI MAHAGANAPATHI
TEMPLE, KOKKADA
BELTHANGADI TALUK
D.K.-574211.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HINDUS RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
DEPARTMENT,
MANGALORE-575001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.D.R. ANANDEESHWARA, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.08.2018
PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Sachin B.S, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.D.R. Anandeeshwara, learned HCGP appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner who has been directed by first respondent to discharge the work at Goshala at Southadka Sri Maha Ganapathi Kshetra, Kokkada, Beltangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada by office order dated 06.08.2018 -Annexure-A is before this Court for quashing the same.
3. It is the contention of learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that first respondent without complying with the mandatory provision of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Rules, 2002 (for short 'Rules') has altered the working condition of the petitioner by changing the nature of work and as such, said order is 3 liable to be quashed. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
4. Per conrtra, learned AGA appearing for respondents would support the impugned order.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the Rules, it would clearly indicate that under Rule 5, temple servants have been classified under two categories namely, (1) indoor temple servants and (2) outdoor temple servants. Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5 defines the duties to be performed by the said temple servants and for immediate reference, said Rule is extracted herein below:
"5. Classification of Temple servants.-
(1) xxx (2) The Archaka, Agamika, paricharaks, upadivantha, paachaka, sthanika, joisa, sripada, srigandha, kattige and sevakaries and also the persons appointed for recitation of Mantras, Vedas, Prabhandas, Puranas and Jyothishyas whose duties are mainly for the performance of 4 rendering assistance in the performance of pooja and rituals shall be indoor temple servants.
(3) The parupathegar, peshkar, bill collector, clerk, typist and other persons employed to perform various duties in the temple excluding the Government Servants deputed from the State Government shall be outdoor temple servants."
6. Though Sri B.S.Sachin, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner would vehemently contended that duty assigned to the petitioner to work in Goshala would amount to outdoor temple services and petitioner was earlier working as indoor temple servant requires to be considered for the purpose of outright rejection inasmuch as, even inside the temple precincts, the duties which was undisputedly performed by the petitioner was as sweeper and in the place of petitioner, Sri Ramesh Bhandary has been posted and petitioner has been posted in place of Sri Ramesh Bhandary namely at Goshala of the said temple. In other words, both Sri Ramesh Bhandary as well as petitioner were 5 performing the duties of sweeping and merely because the petitioner was discharging his duty as sweeper inside the temple precincts or to be precise, outside the sanctum sanctorum and inside the temple precincts, services performed by petitioner cannot be termed as indoor services, inasmuch as, Rule 5(2) would clearly disclose that indoor servants of the temple would be only those persons who are defined specifically therein and whose duties are mainly the purpose of rendering assistance in performing of pooja and rituals. It is not even the case of petitioner that he was rendering assistance for the purpose of pooja and rituals connected thereto and there is not even a whisper to the said effect in the petition. In that view of the matter, contention of learned Advocate appearing for petitioner cannot be accepted and it stands rejected.
7. However, representation dated 07.08.2018 - Annexure-C submitted by the petitioner would indicate that petitioner till he was transferred under the impugned office order was discharging his duties as 6 sweeper inside the temple precincts and it is also claimed in the writ petition that petitioner is suffering from dust allergy and would be unable to discharge the duties at Goshala and it would suffice if liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation to the first respondent enclosing medical records if any for being considered in the first respondent. In the event of such representation being submitted by petitioner, first respondent shall consider the same on merits and in accordance with law.
Subject to these observations, petition stands disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE *sp