Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

B.Santhosh Kumar vs The Executive Officer

Madras High Court|17 November, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader, took notice for the respondents.
2.The writ petitioner has come to this Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 29.05.2017 for appointing him as Nathaswaram Vidwan in the 1st respondent's temple.
3.The petitioner is a nathaswaram vidwan and his father V.S.Balakrishnan is a retired nathaswaram Vidwan from Arulmigu Vallakkottai Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil, Vallakkottai (1st respondent temple). The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's ancestors were working in the 1st respondent-temple for generation together and playing nathaswaram and davil in the said temple from the year 1982. The petitioner's father, who was also a nathaswaram vidwan in the 1st respondent temple, retired on 31.03.2017. The petitioner has also took part in the temple ceremonies and played nathaswaram and davil. After the retirement of his father, the petitioner has given a representation dated 28.02.2017 to the respondents requesting to give permanent employment as nathaswaram vidwan as he also played nathaswaram for the said temple functions, otherwise, the temple has to hire outside people with higher cost for playing nathaswaram in the temple functions. But, the said representation was not till date considered by the respondents. Hence, he has come before this Court seeking mandamus.
4.Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner's representation will be considered by the Executive Officer of the temple and the Assistant Commssioner, HR & CE (respondents 1 & 2) and thereafter, it will be considered by the Commissioner, HR & CE, Chennai.
5.Hence, this Court directs the respondents 1 & 2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.05.2017 and forward the same to the 4th respondent for his consideration and orders, as expeditiously as possible.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
17.11.2017 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No ssv T.RAJA, J.
ssv To
1.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vallakkottai Subramaniya Swamy Thirukovil, Vallakkottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment, Vellore.
3.The Joint Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Vellore.
4.The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.
Nungabakkam, Chennai.
W.P.No.29451 of 2017 17.11.2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

B.Santhosh Kumar vs The Executive Officer

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
17 November, 2017