Karnataka High Court
Shivanagouda vs The Commissioner, on 3 June, 2019
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03 R D DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
W.P.NOs.109543-547/2016 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVANAGOUDA
S/O: PARASANAGOUDA RENAKIGOUDAR
AGED ABOUT: 26 YEARS,
2. SRI. MANJUNA TH
S/O: RAMANAGOUDA MEDAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT: 24 YEARS,
3. SRI. MALLIKARJU NGOUDA
S/O: BASANAGOUDA KANDIGAVAD,
AGED ABOUT: 25 YEARS,
4. SRI. PRAVEEN
S/O: PARASANAGOUDA POLISHI,
AGED ABOUT: 26 YEARS,
5. SRI. GOVINDGOUDA
S/O: PARASANAGOUDA HIREGOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT: 20 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O: UGARGOL,
TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI- 591110.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJN C.BASAREDD Y, ADV.)
2
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
HINDU RELIGIOUS INS TITU TIONS &
CHARITABLE END OWMENTS DEPARTMENT
2 N D F LOOR, SRI M ALE MAHADESHWARA
VARTHE BHAVAN, ALUR VENKA TARA O ROAD,
CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU-560018.
2. THE DEPU TY COMMISSIONER,
BELGAUM DIS TRICT,
BELAGAVI.
3. THE EXECU TIVE O FFICER
RENUKA Y ELLAMMA DEVAS THANA
SAUNDATTI TA LUK,
BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITU TION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER WRIT, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEA RING
NO.DVS/SIBBANDI/CR-80- /2012-13/536 DATED
13.09.2016 VIDE A NNEXURE-J AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the impugned endorsement issued by the 3 r d respondent dated 13.09.2016 at Annexure-J and writ of mandamus directing 3 respondent No.3 to permit the petitioners to perform the pooja as Archakas to the 3rd respondent temple.
2. It is stated that the respondent No.1 appointed the petitioners as Archakas to the respondent temple on 18.03.2013 in pursuance to the letter dated 08.02.2013 of the 3rd respondent. The Management Committee of the respondent temple passed a resolution resolving to continue the services of the petitioners as Archakas by its resolution dated 25.02.2013. The respondent No.1-Commissioner by his order dated 21.08.2013, permitted to continue the services of the Archakas with certain conditions and salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent No.3 on consideration of their representation for continuing them as Adhoc Archakas has issued 4 an endorsement dated 13.09.2016, stating that when the applications are invited for filling up of the posts of Archakas, they may submit their application. Challenging the said endorsement, the petitioners are before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. On going through the material on record, it is clear that the petitioners were appointed as Archakas under Annexure-A, only for one day during the Jatra Mahotsav, as there would be rush of devotees. In the order itself, it is made clear that the Archakas were appointed on Adhoc basis for a day and they would not get any right for appointment. The petitioners had made representation stating that their service would come to an end on 30.06.2013 and requested the 3 r d respondent to continue them beyond 30.06.2013. Considering the said 5 representation, by resolution dated 25.05.2013, in view of necessity the petitioners' services were continued from 01.07.2013 to 31.03.2014 on a consolidated salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. The respondent No.1-Commissioner as a special case approved the Adhoc appointment of Archakas for a period of 3 months 12 days on payment of Rs.3,000/- per month as salary. The said appointment also makes it clear that the same should not be treated as appointment and there is no right for the petitioners to seek for appointment. It is clear that the petitioners were appointed on Adhoc basis as Archakas in the respondent-temple only during the festival period and when the services of Archakas are needed during the festival days. Rule 12 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions And Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, provides for appointment of temple servants and Archakas. 6 Archakas could be appointed only by following procedures prescribed under the Rules. In that circumstances, the first respondent- Commissioner has rightly issued endorsement dated 13.09.2016. When the petitioners were appointed on Adhoc basis, the authorities had made abundantly clear that they should not consider the same as permanent appointment and they would have no right for seeking any appointment. They were appointed only for Festival period when their services are needed. Adhoc appointees appointed for specific period or purpose have no right to continue on expiration of period or on achieving the purpose. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with the endorsement dated 13.09.2016. It is open for respondent No.3 to engage the services of petitioners, if need arises during the festival period.
7
With the above, the petitions are disposed of.
SD JUDGE ms r