IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.24218-24221/2017(GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
1. HEMANTH KUMAR S/O MR DHARMARAYA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS NO.138, 9TH CROSS, K.R.LAYOUT, J.P NAGAR VI STAGE, BENGALURU-560 078 2. DAYANANDA R S/O RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS NO.138, 9TH CROSS, K.R.LAYOUT, J.P NAGAR VI STAGE BENGALURU-560 078 3. GOVARDHAN S/O YELLAPPA @ PAILVAN CHAINARAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS NO.5, NARASIMHA JOSHI LANE HALASURU PET, NAGARATH PET BENGALURU-560 002 4. C DEEPAKCHANDRA S/O R CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS NO.19, E.V.LANE S.P ROAD CROSS,THIGALARPET BENGALURU-560002 ..PETITIONERS (BY SRI Y R SADASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI R BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (MUZARAI) M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS MALE MADESHWARA BHAVANA BUILDING TIPPU SULTAN PALACE ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (MUZARAI) BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009 4. THE ASISTANT COMMISSIONER (MUZARAI) & ADMINISTRATOR SRI DHARMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE THIGALARPET,BENGALURU-560 002 5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI RAYA RAYA KALYANA MANTAPA & ALSO THE GROUP OF TEMPLES CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018 6. SRI MANU N S/O NAGARAJU N AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS NO.101, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, K.R.LAYOUT, J.P NAGAR VI PHASE BENGALURU-560 078 7. THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF SRI DHARMARAYA SWAMY TEMPLE OTC ROAD, THIGALARPET, BENGALURU-560 002 REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI GURUDAS S KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR R6; SRI R.S.RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R7) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
QUASH THE PORTION OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE RESPONDENT NO.6 AS THE SECOND SARADI ARCHAKA TO SRI DHARMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE, THIGALARPET, BENGALURU PASSED BY R-4 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.03.2017 AT ANNEXURE-A;
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.CM 323 VK 2017 DATED 02.05.2017 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE CHIEF MINISTER, STATE OF KARNATAKA AT ANNEXURE-G;
DIRECT R-4 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS FOR THE APPOINTMENT AS THE SECOND SARADI ARCHAKA TO SRI DHARMARAYASWAMY TEMPLE, THIGALARPET, BENGALURU AND PASS CONSIDERED ORDERS ON MERITS.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These writ petitions are filed by the unsuccessful petitioners in pursuance of the notification dated 30.08.2016 issued by the 5th respondent-Executive Officer, Raya Raya Kalyana Mantapa and are before this court for writ of certiorari to quash the order of appointment of 6th respondent as second Saradi Archaka of Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple, Thigalarpet passed by 4th respondent dated 25.03.2017 – Annexure-A and quash the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Hon’ble the then Chief Minister, State of Karnataka at Annexure-G and direct the 4th respondent to consider applications of the petitioners to appoint as second Saradi Archaka of Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple, Thigalarpet, Bengaluru and pass considered orders on merits.
I. Facts of the case:
2. It is the case of the petitioners that Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple, situated at Thigalarpet, is a Muzarai Temple having the history of more than 1,000 years and it is popularly known as world fame Bengaluru Karga Temple. As per the Hindu Mythology the origin of the temple relates back to the end of Dwapara Yug and Goddess Draupadi is worshipped in this temple of Thigalarpet in the State of Karnataka. The Bengaluru Karaga Shakthyotsava and performance of poojas and other Kainkariyas are being performed from time immemorial with all religious fervor and same is managed and administered by Kulasthara Sabhe comprising of Kula Gowdaru, Ganacharigalu, Chakridararu and other prominent persons of Thigala Community and this Committee is headed by Kula Gowdaru and Ganacharigalu who will take decision in the matter of performance of poojas and other rituals in the temple as well as the appointment of Archakas.
3. It is further case of the petitioners that 5th respondent issued notification inviting applications for appointment of Archaka on 30.08.2016 as per Annexure-D. In response to notification issued by 5th respondent, there were 11 applicants who filed applications including the petitioners. Out of 11 applicants, only 5 candidates called for interview by interview letter dated 16.01.2017. Out of 5 applicants, the Committee constituted consisting of five members, appointed one Jnanendra and 6th respondent in the present writ petitions. Therefore, the petitioners are before this court mainly contending that 6th respondent has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria mentioned in the notification dated 30.08.2016 especially condition Nos.6 and 7 that he should produce the certificate of fitness issued by District Surgeon and person who filed the application should know the customs, usage to perform pooja. Hence, the present writ petitions for the reliefs sought for.
II. Objections filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5:
4. Respondents 1 to 5 filed objections. It is specifically contended that very writ petitions filed by the petitioners for the relief sought are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine and further contended that petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands. Petitioners are set up by one Jnanendra who has been selected as Archaka. It is further contended that in response to notification dated 30.08.2016, there were 11 applications. Out of 11 applicants, only 2 were selected as they were qualifying the requirements as per the customs and tradition and rest of the applications came to be rejected. One of the applications came to be rejected on the ground that he was barred by age and other 5 applications were rejected including petitioners on the ground that they were Bachelors and not married as on the date of the application. 5 applicants were called for interview on 02.02.2017. Out of 5 applicants, 2 candidates were selected one Jnanendra and other one 6th respondent. It is further stated that Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple, Thigalarpet is a notified `B’ category temple by the State, State Muzarai Department having the history of more than 1,000 years. The world fame Karaga Shakthyotsava being conducted every year.
5. It is also contended that earlier for non appointment of Archaka for the said temple, one M.Lakshmisha filed Writ Petition No.31091/2013 before this court and this court by the order dated 10.10.2013 directed the Special Deputy Commissioner to pass necessary orders on the representations made by said M.Lakshmisha. Thereafter, the Special Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 22.11.2013 appointed M.Jnanendra for the year 2013-2014, M.Lakshmisha for the year 2014-2015 and C.M.Lokesha for the year 2015-2016 to perform Karaga Shakthyotstava of the said temple.
6. There were many writ petitions before this court earlier with respect to the said temple. Ultimately, it is stated that earlier in the said temple there exists two posts one post of Principal Archaka and another post of Saradi Archaka and since there is no necessity of the post of Principal Archaka, now the post of Principal Archaka has been re-designated as Saradhi Archaka-01 and Saradhi Archaka-02.
7. The Committee constituted for the said purpose selected candidates who fulfilled conditions of the notifications i.e., one Jnanendra and Manu – respondent No.6 who scored maximum marks in the interview has been selected by exercising the powers conferred under Sections 9, 10 and 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 read with Rule 12(8) of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002. Hence, respondents 1 to 5 sought for dismissal of the petitions.
III. The Sixth respondent filed objections:
8. The 6th respondent also filed objections to the main petitions and contended that the very writ petitions filed by petitioners are not maintainable and impugned order dated 25.03.2017 at Annexure-A is revisable under Section 63 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (Amendment) and further contended that present petitioners who filed present writ petitions are not at all eligible and therefore they were not called for interview. The appointment of 6th respondent is after following procedures as contemplated under notification dated 30.08.2016 and after following procedure as contemplated under Sections 9, 10 and 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 read with Rule 12(8) of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002. It is further contended that the 6th respondent is conversant with the rituals and traditions of the temple as he has taken training from Ex.Chief Priest Sri Abhimanyu for a period of 9 years as per Annexure-R-3 and he is also physically fit and physical fitness certificate is issued by District Surgeon showing he is physically fit as per Annexure-
R-4. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.
IV. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties:
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
10. Sri Y. R. Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior counsel for petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by 4th respondent appointing 6th respondent is illegal, perverse and cannot be sustained. He would further contend that 4th respondent appointed 6th respondent in violation of mandatory provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 read with Rule 12(8) of Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002.
11. He further contended that 6th respondent has not fulfilled condition Nos.6 and 7 of the notification dated 30.08.2016. Therefore, appointment of 6th respondent is liable to be quashed. He would further contend that as per Rule 12(4)(iv) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002, after receipt of the applications, the selection committee consisting of Executive Officer, Chairman including an Archaka of a different temple co-opted by the Chairman of the Committee of management with the approval of the prescribed Authority for verification educational qualification and other related issues shall hold the interview in the premises of the temple and select the candidates based on the marks secured by the candidates in the qualifying examination and at the interview. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions by quashing the impugned order passed by the Authorities.
12. Sri. R.S.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant – respondent No.7, who represents the Committee, contended that the Authorities while appointing the Archakas of the temple shall not interfere with the customs, usages, ceremonies and practices provided in the notified instructions or the declared instructions as they have special powers as contemplated under Section 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997. He further contended that the 6th respondent is appointed in violation of the provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 read with Rule 12(8) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 as he is not observing the customs, usages, ceremonies and practices of Sri Dharmarayaswamy temple. Therefore, he supported the case of the petitioners to allow the petitions.
13. Per contra, Sri. G.S. Kannur, learned Senior counsel for the 6th respondent sought to justify the impugned order passed by respondent No.4 and contended that at the out set, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable as the petitioners are not at all eligible for the post of Archakas in terms of the notification issued by the 4th respondent dated 30.08.2016. Therefore, they have not been called for the interview conducted on 02.02.2017 by the interview letter dated 16.01.2017. He further contended that it is not the case of the petitioners that though they are eligible, they have not been called for the interview. Admittedly, the interview letter issued on 16.01.2017 is not at all questioned.
14. He would further contend that the 4th respondent issued Annexure-D inviting the eligible candidates for appointment of Archakas to Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple on 30.08.2016 imposing 11 conditions. Admittedly, the said notification, inviting applications with conditions is not at all challenged. The challenge is made to the said notification after appointment of the 6th respondent is an afterthought and the same cannot be entertained. Even assuming that they have challenged Annexure-D, still they are not eligible in terms of Annexure-D. He would further contend that as on the date of notification issued on 30.08.2016, the petitioners were not eligible. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
15. Sri. S.Chandrashekharaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the State Government-respondent No.4, after following the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 read with Rule 12(8) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002, appointed one Jnanendra and present respondent No.6. Admittedly, there is no challenge with respect to the appointment of Jnanendra. He would further contend that the Committee consisting of six highly qualified persons conducted the interview and appointed Jnanendra and the present respondent No.6 - Manu who secured highest marks in the interview namely 23 and 22 respectively. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petitions.
V. Consideration :
16. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record carefully.
17. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.4 invited applications for appointment of Archakas to Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple as per Anneuxre-D on 30.08.2016 subject to fulfillment of 11 conditions mentioned therein. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of the said notification issued by 4th respondent, there were 11 applications applied in terms of Annexure-E including the present petitioners. Out of 11 applications, the Committee constituted consisting of six members i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, Muzarai, the Senior Agama Panditha, the office Assistant No.2, the Muzarai Tahasildar, the Principal Archaka, the Executive Officer of Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple found fit only 5 eligible candidates after following the due procedure as contemplated under the law for appointment of Archakas, issued interview letters dated 16.01.2017 to only five persons including respondent No.6 and one Jnanendra.
18. Admittedly, the petitioners have not challenged the interview letters issued on 16.01.2017. The Committee conducted interview of 5 eligible candidates on 02.02.2017. In the interview, one Jnanendra has obtained total marks of 23 and R.Manu 6th respondent herein has obtained 22 marks. The other unsuccessful persons in the interview have not been aggrieved by the appointment of either Jnanendra or respondent No.6 - Manu and are not before this Court.
19. It is not the case of the petitioners that though they are eligible, they were not called for the interview and though they are fit to conduct the Annual Karaga Shakthyotsava, they have been deprived by the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
20. As rightly contended by Sri. R.S.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the impleading applicant – respondent No.7 representing the Committee, the person who is appointed as Archaka should be physically fit to perform the Karaga Shakthyotsava about 25 kilo meters holding the karaga weight of 100 kgs. It is also not in dispute that this year when Karaga Shakthyotsava was conducted on April, 2019, the 6th respondent has performed the Karaga Shakthyotsava successfully. It is not the case of the petitioners that the 6th respondent has not followed the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and that he has not observed the customs, usages, ceremonies and practices as per the Karaga Shakthyotsava Achara Performance Code.
21. It is also not in dispute that after selection has been made, initially the petitioners have challenged the appointment of 6th respondent as Archaka and subsequently, at a later stage, amended the same by challenging the conditions stipulated in the notification dated 30.08.2016 issued by the 4th respondent. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have fulfilled all the conditions. Taking into consideration the traditions of the temple as contended by the petitioners themselves and also that Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple situated at Thigalarpet, Bengaluru is a Muzarai Temple having history of more than 1000 years, admittedly known as World fame Bengaluru Karaga Temple, it is in the exclusive domain of the Authorities under Sections 9, 10 and 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 to prescribe the conditions for appointment of Archakas and it is not for the court to prescribe the conditions and to interfere with the said powers of the concerned Authorities. Admittedly, the petitioners have not challenged either the provisions of Section 9, 10 and 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 or Rule 12 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002.
22. The main contention of the petitioners before this Court is that respondent No.6 has not fulfilled the conditions No.6 and 7 of the notification dated 30.08.2016. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed objections before this Court and has categorically denied the contentions and specifically, contended that the 6th respondent is conversant with the rituals and traditions of the temple as he has taken training for a period of 9 years as per Annexure-R3 and he is physically fit. The fitness certificate issued by the District Surgeon states that the 6th respondent is physically fit to perform the Karaga Shakthyotsava as per Annexure R4. Admittedly, the petitioners have not filed any rejoinder to the said objections. The certificate of training issued by the Ex-Chief Priest as per Annexure-R3 and Certificate issued by the Doctor as per Annexure-R4 are not disputed by the petitioners. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners that the 6th respondent has not fulfilled the conditions cannot be accepted.
23. Though the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners specifically invited the attention of the Court to Rule 12(4)(iv) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002, which states that the interview shall be conducted in the temple premises, no doubt the words ‘interview shall be conducted in the temple premises’ are used in the Rule, the fact remains that the Committee in order to avoid some disturbances in the temple, thought fit to conduct interview at Rameshwara Temple, Chamrajpet and selected the 6th respondent Manu and one Jnanendra strictly in accordance with law. The fact the Committee conducted the interview is not in dispute and the said contention of the learned Senior Counsel will not assist the case of the petitioners. Since the petitioners themselves are not eligible for appointment as Archakas and it is also not in dispute that the petitioners have not challenged the appointment of Jnanendra and in the entire writ petition they have not whispered any single word whether Jnanendra has fulfilled all the conditions. In the absence of any right conferred on the petitioners, the very writ petitions filed before this Court for the relief as sought for is not maintainable.
24. The respondent No.4 received applications and based on that, the Committee constituted consisting of six members selected respondent No.6 in terms of provisions of Sections 9, 10 and 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 read with Rule 12(8) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002. Hence, the petitioners have not made any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by respondent No.4.
25. Though the letter Annexure-G was issued by the then Hon’ble Chief Minister only to perform the pooja for a particular year and it is not the case of the petitioners in the entire grounds of the writ petitions that selection is made only on the basis of the recommendation as per Annexure-G without conducting interview. The Authorities have followed the procedure as contemplated under Sections 9, 10 and 58 of the of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 read with Rule 12(8) of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 for conducting interview and assigning marks in the interview and appointed the 6th respondent and one Jnanendra in accordance with law.
VI. Conclusion:
26. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders passed by the authorities as per Annexure-A and the notification as per Annexure-D are in accordance with law. The petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed.
27. However, it is made clear that, if the present Archakas/appointees do not perform the customs, usages, ceremonies and practices of the temple as contemplated under Section 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997, it is always open for the Committee to approach the competent authority in accordance with law.
28. In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, I.As. do not survive for consideration.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN/PYR