Harish Namboodiri v Travancore Devaswom Board & Others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023/3RD ASWINA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.21618 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` HARISH NAMBOODIRI, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, MADAVANA MANA, PALLISSERY, ANNAMANADA P.O, PIN - 680741 ``` ``` BY ADVS.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA SONY BENNY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAVADIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003`** - **`2 THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAVADIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003`** - **`3 COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001`** ``` R1 & R2 BY SRI G.BIJU, SC, TDB ; R3 BY SRI K.P. SUDHEER – SC, TDB ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner, who is presently working as Melsanthi in a temple under the management of the 3[rd] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a declaration that Clause 4 in Ext.P1 notification No.ROC 09/2023/S issued by the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, to the extent it stipulates that an applicant to the post of Melsanthi of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms should have a Santhi experience of continuous 10 years within a span of 12 years in a temple having three times daily pooja, is arbitrary, illegal and has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved and set aside the same. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to consider his application to the post of Melsanthi of Sabarimala and Malikappuram Devaswoms for the year 1199ME, without insisting for Santhi experience of continuous 10 years within a span of 12 years in a temple having three times daily pooja. 2. On 12.07.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought 10 days’ time to file counter affidavit 3 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 ## on behalf of the 1[st] respondent Board. 3. A counter affidavit dated 26.07.2023 has been placed on record on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. On 01.08.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that baseless and unfounded allegations had been made against the petitioner in paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 03.08.2023. Respondents 1 and 2 filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 seeking permission to withdraw the counter affidavit dated 26.07.2023 and to accept the additional counter affidavit dated 10.08.2023 filed along with that application as the counter affidavit of the said respondents, which was allowed by the order dated 18.08.2023. Paragraphs 4 to 11 of the counter affidavit dated 10.08.2023 filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 read thus; “4. It is respectfully submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that it is premature. The petitioner has submitted an application pursuant to ExhibitP1 notification and his application is being processed. At this stage, he cannot seek a direction to consider his application contrary to the stipulations regarding qualification and eligibility stipulated in the notification. 5. It is submitted that Exhibit-P1 guidelines itself provide sufficient mechanisms to redress the grievances of the applicants. As per clause 13 of the guidelines, the Vigilance wing of the Board conducts an enquiry regarding the 4 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 credentials of the applicants stated in their application, based on which a list of eligible candidates to be called for interview will be published. If any of the applicants have any grievances, they can submit their objections before the Board. The Board will consider those objections and take decisions thereon. Interviews will be commenced thereafter and the rank list will be published on the last day of the interview. Clause 15 stipulates that the Melsanthi will be selected by draw of lot of candidates who have secured 60% and above marks in the interview. The above procedure was approved by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in **Krishnan Namboothiri S. Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board & others reported in [2015 (5) KHC 829]** . 6. It is submitted that the Travancore Devaswom Board is a Statutory body constituted as per the T.C.H.R.I Act, 1950. Sabarimala/Malikappuram Devaswom are temples under the management of the Board. The Board prescribed general guidelines prescribing the procedure for selection of Melsanthi and norms prescribing the qualifications for selection of Melsanthi in Sabarimala/Malikappuram Devaswom, which went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court without exhausting the statutory remedies provided in the norms. Hence the writ petition is not maintainable on that ground also. He cannot participate in the selection process simultaneously challenging Exhibit-P1 notification. 7. As per clause 4 of Exhibit-P1 notification, one of the qualifications prescribed for selection to the post of Melsanthi is that the applicant should have experience as Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years within the last 5 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 12 year period in a temple which is open for darshan to public and opens Nada twice daily and having three times pooja daily. The temporary absence from service due to - a) bereavement in the family, b) transfer or new appointment, c) training with a Tantri for a maximum period of 3 months - will not be reckoned as a break in service. The period spent as Keezhsanthi in a temple where two santhies work observing the Masam Maradi system will also count as requisite service. The service particulars from 01.06.2011 will be considered for the selection for this year, i.e., 1199 M.E. 8. It is submitted that Sabarimala is a world-famous temple situated within the dense forest, Periyar Tiger Reserve Wildlife Sanctuary. It has its own special characteristics which would require the best and most experienced Santhi to be appointed as its Melsanthi. The Melsanthi of Sabarimala/Malikappuram is a Purappeda Santhi, who can leave Sannidhanam only after completing his tenure. The qualifications are prescribed to select the person most suitable to the post. The qualifications prescribed in ExhibitP1 notification are not perverse or impossible to attain. Several candidates are available, who possess the qualifications prescribed in the notification. 9. It is respectfully submitted that it is within the realm of the appointing authority to fix a qualification, which is one capable of being attained. The applicant cannot dictate as to what should be the qualification for appointment to a particular post. Travancore Devaswom Board, being the appointing authority of Melsanthi in Sabarimala/ Malikappuram temples, have stipulated the qualification to select the most competent person for the coveted post. The 6 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 above stipulation contained in clause 4 of the norms was considered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in **Rajesh. J. Potty Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board reported in [2018 (5) KHC 220]** and found that the qualifications fixed by the Board are not perverse or impossible to attain. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in **Krishnan Namboothiri** supra held that "selection to the post of a Melsanthi cannot be treated as a selection merely for public employment and the canvas in which grounds relating to Art. 14, Art.16. etc. of the Constitution of India would be etched, will not necessarily be carried, as a whole, into such matters". 10. It is submitted that the averment of the petitioner stated in para 2 of the writ petition that he is an 'A' Grade Melsanthi under the Cochin Devaswom Board for the past 36 years, is not correct and hence denied. Petitioner further states that he is aggrieved by clause 4 of Exhibit-P1 notification to the extent it stipulates that an applicant to the post of Melsanthi to Sabarimala/Malikappuram Temple should have a Shanthi experience of continuous 10 years within a span of 12 years in a temple having 3 times daily pooja. The qualification stipulated in clause 4 of Exhibit-P1 is incorrectly stated by the petitioner as **Shanthi experience** of continuous 10 years within a span of 12 years in a temple having 3 times daily pooja instead of **Melsanthi service** of 10 years. The qualification stipulated by the Board is deliberately extracted wrongly so as to mislead this Hon'ble Court. 11. It is submitted that the 12-year service of the applicant from 01.06.2011 will be reckoned for considering the Melsanthi service of 10 years as per the notification. The 7 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 Certificate of experience of the applicant in the format prescribed in Exhibit-P1 notification containing service particulars from 01.06.2011 has to be submitted along with the application. It is certified in Exhibit-P2 that the petitioner has 10 years of continuous Melsanthi service within a span of 12 years in temples which open twice daily and have three poojas and are open for darshan to the public. The above certification appears to be not correct going by the admitted case of the petitioner. Petitioner has produced Exhibit-P2 fully knowing that its contents are incorrect. Moreover, Exhibit-P2 certificate of experience produced by the petitioner is not in the format prescribed in Exhibit-P1 notification. As per the order dated 04.07.2022 in DBA No.05/2022 **[2022-KER-33564]** , this Hon'ble Court ordered that the Board shall not permit any candidate to substitute the experience certificate enclosed along with the application, which shall be specified in the format of the experience certificate and also in the notification.” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for the 3[rd] respondent. 5. The issue that requires consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 notification issued by the 2[nd] respondent Commissioner to the extent it stipulates that an applicant to the post of Melsanthi in Sabarimala Sree Dharma 8 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 Sastha Temple or Malikappuram Temple should have a Melsanthi experience of continuous 10 years within a span of 12 years in temple having three times daily pooja. 6. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, which is situated inside Periyar Tiger Reserve, is a prominent pilgrim centre in Kerala, where lakhs of devotees trek the rugged terrains of Western Ghats to have darshan of Lord Ayyappa. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple come under the Travancore Devaswom Board. By reason of the custom and tradition, Melsanthies of the Temples are selected every year. The tenure of the Melsanthies is for one year from the 1[st] of Vrischikam to the 31[st] of Thulam next year. 7. In **Mohandas Embranthiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2001 (1) KLT 203]** , in the context of selection of Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, a Division Bench of this Court held that the Travancore Devaswom Board, being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot choose any person as Melsanthi without any guidelines. For every year, the choosing of Melsanthi has to be done only after proper selection. The Division Bench noticed that the notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board inviting applications for the selection of Melsanthi of 9 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, for one year from the 1[st] of Vrischikam to 31[st] Thulam, 1176, mentions the basic qualifications necessary for being selected and that, those who have got basic qualifications will be interviewed by the Committee, which will include the Thantri. On the basis of the interview, a short list will be prepared. The selection will be made from the candidates included in the short list on the basis of lot in front of the sanctum sanctorum. The Interview Board should consist of persons, who have knowledge of the subject on which questions are put. The Division Bench noticed that the purpose of the interview is to get the best person for appointment as Melsanthi at Sabarimala Temple. The knowledge of the candidates in the three topics should be assessed, which can be done with the experts in the field. 8. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 09.04.2010 in D.B.P.No.50 of 2009 has issued various directions in the matter of selection of Melsanthies in Sabarimala and Malikappuram Temples. The directions contained in paragraph 15 of the order dated 09.04.2010 in D.B.P No.50 of 2009 read thus: i) Clause 3 of the guidelines will be as follows: The applicant should be a person having service as Santhi for a continuous period of 10 years out of a total period of 12 years in a Temple which open twice daily and having three 10 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 poojas and where public is having right to worship. Any temporary absence due to various reasons like the period spent on religious obsequies due to death of any of the members of the family or for other similar reasons; temporary gap in service due to the time take for joining the post of Melsanthi after relief from one Temple either due to transfer or due to fresh appointment, should not be treated as discontinuance, for counting the continuous period. In Temples where two Melsanthies are functioning on alternate basis, the period during which one may have to function as Keezhsanthi, will also be taken for counting the 10 year period. ii) There need not be any change in the formation of the Selection Committee and a former Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple will be included as ordered in our order dated 24.06.2009; iii) All candidates who have secured 60% and above marks in the interview, will be included as a panel for the purpose of taking lot; iv) Applications will be called for on or before 1[st] of July fixing the last date for receipt of applications as 15[th] July. After conducting the Vigilance enquiry, the list of eligible candidates for interview will be published on or before 15[th] of August. Objections before the Devaswom Board by the aggrieved persons will be submitted within 15 days. The Devaswom Board will act as an appellate authority over the report of the Vigilance enquiry and the Board will take a decision on or before 15[th] of September. Interview will be conducted in the first week of October; v) The list of candidates to be included in the panel will be finalised and published on the closing day of the interview 11 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 and the selection papers will be kept in the safe custody of the Devaswom commissioner; vi) With regard to the drawing of lot, the present procedure will continue; and vii) The academic qualification will be as in the existing guidelines, i.e., pass in SSLC. The existing guidelines will thus be modified and the guidelines as revised will be adopted for the selection of Melsanthies in the two Temples will appropriate rules are framed by the Board. 9. The issue relating to the procedure for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple went up to the Apex Court. The Apex Court by the order dated 15.11.2010 in Civil Appeal No.2570-71 of 2003 referred the matter for mediation. The ‘Terms of Settlement’ arrived at between the parties were placed on record along with the report of the Mediator. The said ‘Terms of Settlement’ fundamentally related to the composition of the selection committee for interviewing and awarding marks for selecting Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple. By the order dated 06.09.2011, the Apex Court disposed of Civil Appeal No.2570-71 of 2003 in terms of the ‘Terms of Settlement’ arrived at between the parties. The said ‘Terms of Settlement’ read thus; "Terms of Settlement:- 1) The composition of the Selection Committee (for 12 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 interviewing and awarding marks for selecting “Melsanthi” for both Sabarimala and Malikappuram temples) was one of the seriously contested issues. All parties, after detailed discussions, agreed to have the Selection Committee to consist of the following persons: A. i) President of TDB. ii) The Member of TDB. iii) The remaining Member of TDB. iv) The Commissioner of TDB. B. i) The Senior Thantri of "Thazhamon Illam/Madom". ii) The Junior Thantri of "Thazhamon Illam/Madom" C. The "Outside Thantri" selected in the process indicated in Clause (a) of Para.2 below: 2) The following modalities have been agreed upon by all as to the formation of the Selection Committee: a. The Thazhamon Illam (hereinafter referred to as "the Illam" for short) will send up names of three persons whom they consider eminent Thantries to TDB. Keeping those names in serious consideration, TDB will draw up a list of ten persons who are eminent Thanthries. That list will be forwarded to the Senior Raja of Pandalam Royal family (hereinafter referred to as "Senior Raja"). The latter will choose five names from the said list and forward such names to the Illam. The Senior Thantri of the Illam will choose one of them and communicate the same to TDB. Thereupon, proceedings will be drawn up by TDB appointing the chosen person as the "Outside Thantri" to be on the selection panel. TDB will notify the same. This panel will be valid for one year. But the same procedure will be adopted for composition of the Selection Committee thereafter also year after year, unless there is statutory intervention. 13 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 b. It is made clear that if Illam is not sending up the names to TDB within one week of receipt of a requisition for that purpose made by TDB, it is open to TDB to prepare the panel of names and send it to the Senior Raja. Similarly, if Senior Raja is not sending the names chosen by him to the Illam, within one week of receipt of the panel from TDB, it is open to TDB to request Thazhamon Illam to choose one name from the original panel prepared by TDB. c. If the Illam is not selecting one person from the panel sent by the Senior Raja (or by TDB as the case may be) within a reasonable period, it is open to TDB to choose one from the panel already formulated by them and notify him as the "Outside Thantri" to be on the Selection Committee. The above is only for composition of the Selection Committee. The next task is to select the "Melsanthies". d. TDB will make the names of all the applicants available on their web site, so that it is open to the Senior Raja to find out whether there is any blemish for any of the applicants and communicate that fact to TDB and or to the Senior Thantri, well ahead of commencement of the selection process. e. Next is the preparation of a list of selected candidates after holding the interview of the applicants by the members of the Selection Committee. While interviewing candidates for "Melsanthies" the members of the Selection Committee can award a total of 90 marks. Out of the 90 marks, 30 marks are set apart for the President, Members and Commissioner of TDB for putting such questions as are deemed necessary for eliciting general knowledge of each candidate and to test his personality. The remaining 60 marks are set apart for putting questions to elicit 14 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 candidates' knowledge in Sanskrit, poojas, rites, Tantric Rituals and other religious matters. Questions in this regard shall be put by the remaining Members of the Selecting Committee formulated above. Out of the 60 marks thus set apart for eliciting the candidates' knowledge in Sanskrit, poojas, etc. the Unit comprising of the Senior Thantri and Junior Thantri of Thazhamon Illam/Madom together can award marks up to 30. The other Unit (the "Outside Thantri") can award marks up to 30. f. After the Selection Committee finalises the list of selected candidates for both Sabarimala and Malikappuram the final choice will be made by draw of lot. The Senior Raja agreed to depute a male child (not above the age of ten) for Sabarimala and a female child (not above the age of ten) for Malikappuram for the purpose of drawing the lot. If male/female child for the above purpose is not deputed by the Senior Raja within a reasonable period, it is open to TDB to arrange for draw of lot in such manner as they deem fit. 3) All parties agreed that the appeals can be disposed of in terms of the above settlement." 10. In **Krishnan Namboothiri S. v. Travancore** **Devaswom Board and others [2015 (5) KHC 829]** , in the context of the selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, a Division Bench of this Court held that selection to the post of Melsanthi cannot be treated as a selection merely for public employment and the canvas in which grounds relating to Articles 14, 16, etc., 15 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 of the Constitution of India would be etched, will not necessarily be carried, as a whole, into such matters. The scheme of the settlement and purpose of the selection to provide Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples have to be borne in mind and cohesively treated while assimilating and applying the terms of the settlement. The Division Bench, though declined interference with the selection process, indicated before parting with the case that once the terms of mediation settlement came to be in operation, the guarantee to the pilgrims, believers, worshippers and faithful followers is that the selection process once carried through the system of the terms of that settlement will give them two persons who will occupy the adorable status of being the Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples. When such seeds of faith are intricately connected with religion, judicial review is impermissible to embark upon and consider any rival claims in the manner as is sought to be raised in the writ petitions. This is all the more so when no breach of the Constitution of India is demonstrated. ## 11. In **Rajesh J. Potty v. Travancore Devaswom** **Board [2018 (5) KHC 220]** a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case which was filed by an applicant who applied 16 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 to take part in the selection process leading to the appointment of Melsanthi at Sabarimala Temple. In the writ petition, it was alleged that the petitioner is incapacitated from taking part in the process because, as per Ext.P1 notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board, only a Santhi (Priest) who has had 12 years experience, out of which, 10 years being spent continuously serving as a Melsanthi (Head Priest) of a temple would alone obtain eligibility for being selected as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple. In the writ petition, it was contended that the above stipulation mandating continuous 10 years service as Melsanthi amounts to an illegal classification among the Santhies, since it has no rationale nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by such classification. The petitioner pointed out that till 2016, there was no such stipulation in the notifications, as evidenced by Ext.P9 notification for the year 2013 and Ext.P10 notification for the year 2014. ## 12. In **Rajesh J. Potty [2018 (5) KHC 220]** the Division Bench noticed that Ext.P1 notification does not provide that every Santhi who has put in 12 years service is automatically eligible; but it additionally prescribes a condition that such Santhies should also have served as a Melsanthi in a temple for a continuous period of 10 years out of this, for being 17 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 rendered eligible to be appointed as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple. Such prescriptive conditions to determine the eligibility of a person can, by no stretch of the imagination, be seen as a sub-classification; but the 12 years continuous service as a Melsanthi in any other temple is only a qualificational condition precedent and the fixing of such a period is intended to narrow the field of choice to the most experienced in terms of years. This becomes all the more relevant because, going by the notification, a person who becomes the Melsanthi in Sabarimala can apply again only after a period of 10 years. These are the prescriptions stipulated in the notification, not to discriminate among persons; but solely to ensure that only a person with the stature and experience behooving the sanctity and divinity of Sabarimala, which is one of the most or perhaps the most prominent temples in the country, is identified and appointed. Before the Division Bench, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Chapter 5 of the Travancore Devaswom Manual published by the Board in the year 2011 treats 'Santhikkars' as a single class and that the provisions of a Melsanthi therein are only with respect to the volume and nature of work in a particular temple. The Manual does not speak specifically about the difference between Melsanthies and other 18 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 Santhies, but only that Melsanthies and Keezhsanthies are appointed in temples where there is a requirement of more than one Santhi. Before the Division Bench, it was argued by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board that the prescription in Ext.P1 notification is in the nature of specified qualifications for the Sabarimala Temple alone and that these prescriptions are at variance with those for other temples since Sabarimala is not an ordinary temple, which has its own singular characteristics, which would require the best and the most experienced Santhi to be appointed as the Melsanthi. The Board, therefore, in the year 2016, thought it fit to enumerate certain adscititious conditions to identify the best candidate, by stipulating that only a person, who has 12 years experience as a Santhi, out of which 10 years being continuously served as a Melsanthi of another temple, would obtain eligibility for being included in the field of choice for appointment as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala. Even when all these stipulations regarding qualification are obtained to a person, he only comes within the field of choice and he does not get any vested right to be appointed, since such appointment is based on a further selection in the manner as has been postulated by the Apex Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.2570-71 of 2003. 19 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 13. In **Rajesh J. Potty [2018 (5) KHC 220]** , on consideration of the aforesaid contentions on the prescription of the qualifications mentioned in Ext.P1 notification, the Division Bench found that the attempt of the Travancore Devaswom Board should always be to find the best among the Santhies so that he will be able to perform as a Purappedasanthi of Sabarimala Temple for a continuous period of one year. His devotion, his competence, his experience and his devoutness are all imperatively relevant criteria, which will require to be specifically and pointedly examined and assessed by the competent authorities; and in order to find the person most suitable for the post, the prescription that he should have served as a Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years in the 12 year period of experience as a Santhi cannot be found to be perverse in any manner. 14. As already noticed hereinbefore, the qualification prescribed in Clause 4 of Ext.P1 notification that the applicant should be a person having service as Santhi for a continuous period of 10 years out of a total period of 12 years in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where the public is having right to worship is one in terms of the order of this Court dated 09.04.2010 in DBA No.50 of 2009, which we 20 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 have extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 11. The issue relating to the procedure for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple went up to the Apex Court. By the order dated 06.09.2011, the Apex Court disposed of Civil Appeal No.2570-71 of 2003 in terms of the ‘Terms of Settlement’ arrived at between the parties, fundamentally related to the composition of the selection committee for interviewing and awarding marks for selecting Melsanthies. As noticed by the Division Bench in **Rajesh J. Potty [2018 (5) KHC 220]** , Ext.P1 notification does not provide that every Santhi who has put in 12 years service is automatically eligible; but it additionally prescribes a condition that such Santhies should also have served as a Melsanthi in a temple for a continuous period of 10 years out of this, for being rendered eligible to be appointed as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple. These are the prescriptions stipulated in the notification, not to discriminate among persons; but solely to ensure that only a person with the stature and experience behooving the sanctity and divinity of Sabarimala, which is one of the most or perhaps the most prominent temples in the country, is identified and appointed. Before the Division Bench, it was contended that the above stipulation mandating continuous 10 years service as 21 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 Melsanthi amounts to an illegal classification among the Santhies, since it has no rationale nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by such classification. The Division Bench repelled that contention, holding that the attempt of the Travancore Devaswom Board should always be to find the best among the Santhis, so that he will be able to perform as a Purappedasanthi of Sabarimala Temple for a continuous period of one year. His devotion, his competence, his experience and his devoutness are all imperatively relevant criteria, which will require to be specifically and pointedly examined and assessed by the competent authorities; and in order to find the person most suitable for the post, the prescription that he should have served as a Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years in the 12 year period of experience as a Santhi cannot be found to be perverse in any manner. 15. The case of the petitioner is that as and when the 3[rd] respondent Cochin Devaswom Board posts him in a temple where there are only two poojas in a day, he is obliged to serve in that temple, which will disqualify him from being called for interview in terms of Clause 4 of Ext.P1 notification, despite the petitioner having continuous 10 years Melsanthi experience in temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and 22 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 where the public is having right to worship. The contention that the above stipulation mandating continuous 10 years service as Melsanthi amounts to an illegal classification among the Santhies, since it has no rationale nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by such classification, has already been repelled in the decision in **Rajesh J. Potty [2018 (5) KHC 220]** . The requirement in terms of Clause 4 of Ext.P1 notification that the applicant should be a person having service as Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years out of a total period of 12 years in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where the public is having right to worship cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal, warranting interference by this Court. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE** AV 23 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21618/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION, DATED NIL AS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF 1ST RESPONDENT ``` - **`Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THRIPUNITHARA GROUP, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, DATED NIL`** - **`Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD BEARING NO. M4/1773/16, DATED 27.06.2016`** - **`Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2022 IN WP(C) NO. 23029 OF 2022`** - **`Exhibit P4a A TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1/22 AND IA 2/22 IN WP(C) NO. 23029 OF 2022`** - **`Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING LETTER, DATED NIL, ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM OFFICER, AZHAKIYA KAVU TEMPLE`** - **`Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM, DATED 01.12.2022 PREPARING THE CONSOLIDATED SENIORITY LIST OF SHANTIES AND CALLING FOR OBJECTION`** ``` Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 06.12.2022 TO EXHIBIT P6 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.06.2023 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXHIBIT P8 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF APPLICATION FOR MALIKAPPURAM ``` 24 W.P.(C)No.21618 of 2023 |**`Exhibit P11`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO, DATED`**| |---|---| ||**`03.08.2019`**| |**`Exhibit P12`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION OF APPEAL,`**| ||**`DATED 05.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY`**| ||**`OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD`**| |**`Exhibit P13`**|**`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED`**| ||**`11.10.2022 IN WP(C) NO. 29863 OF 2022`**|