Dismissed

Sri S a Veerabhadra Prasad v. the Commissioner of Endowments

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2024WP/5230/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of claim to work as Paricharaka at Ghati Subramanya Temple on hereditary rotation basis. Court found respondent No.5's appointment had been regularised and attained finality, and no substantial evidence established hereditary character of post. Petition dismissed with liberty to approach civil court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri S a Veerabhadra Prasad Vs the Commissioner of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50358 WP No. 5230 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5230 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI S A VEERABHADRA PRASAD S/O LATE P S ADINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, GHATI SUBRAMANYA VILLAGE, THUBUGERE HOBLI - 561205 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶13

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BEERASANDRA - 562110 DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HR AND CE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 561203.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SHRI GHATI SUBRAMANYA TEMPLE, S S GHATI, THUBUGERE HOBLI - 561205

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:50358 WP No. 5230 of 2023

¶18

DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶19

SRI. S.A. SHANKAR, S/O LATE P S ADINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, GHATI SUBRAMANYA VILLAGE, THUBUGERE HOBLI - 561205 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. D R RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 IN ADM 7/RP 2/202223 DTD 05.01.2023 ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner challenges the order passed by respondent No.1, wherein his claim to work as a Paricharaka at Shri Ghati Subramanya Swamy Temple on a rotation basis was rejected.

¶27

Admittedly, the father of the petitioner and respondent No.5 worked as Paricharaka at Shri Ghati Subramanya Swamy Temple. During his lifetime, with his consent, respondent No.5 was appointed as a Paricharaka on

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:50358 WP No. 5230 of 2023

¶30

a temporary basis as per the communication dated 30.5.1993 issued by Shri Ghati Subramanya Swamy Temple. Subsequently, with the approval of the Rajya Dharmika Parishath, the Executive Officer regularized respondent No.5’s appointment as Paricharaka, which was confirmed by the Commissioner on 7.5.1997.

¶31

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.3, asserting that the position of Paricharaka is hereditary and requesting permission to serve in the role on a rotation basis. However, respondent No.3 rejected the petitioner’s claim, prompting the petitioner to appeal to respondent No.1. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and denied his claim to serve as Paricharaka on a rotational basis.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the father of the petitioner performed the duties of Paricharaka, which is a hereditary post, and thus, the petitioner is entitled to the same role on a rotational basis. To support this claim, the petitioner submitted a communication dated 20.08.2016 from the Temple, indicating that the post is hereditary.

¶33

In response, Mr. D.R. Ravishankar, learned counsel for respondent No.5, and the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) for the respondent-State

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50358 WP No. 5230 of 2023

¶35

contended that respondent No.5 was appointed as Paricharaka on a temporary basis based on the Temple’s recommendation dated 30.5.1993. Subsequently, his appointment was regularized by the competent authority on 7.5.1997. Since the petitioner has not challenged this regularization, the claim filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. They further contended that the petitioner is currently working as a priest at Venugopala Swamy Temple, Nagenahalli, and receiving Dharkastha allowances. Taking these facts into account, respondent No.1 dismissed the appeal, and no grounds for interference with the impugned order exist.

¶36

After considering the arguments, the following points are noted:

¶37

• The father of the petitioner and respondent No.5 worked as Paricharaka at Shri Ghati Subramanya Swamy Temple.

¶38

• Based on the Temple’s recommendation, respondent No.5 was appointed on a temporary basis as Paricharaka, and his appointment was regularized by the competent authority on 7.5.1997. This regularization has not been challenged and has attained finality.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:50358 WP No. 5230 of 2023

¶41

• The petitioner, currently working as a priest at Venugopala Swamy Temple, Nagenahalli, submitted a representation in 2016 to respondent No.2, asserting that the position of Paricharaka is hereditary and claiming entitlement to serve on a rotational basis.

¶42

The petitioner produced a communication dated 20.8.2016 from the Temple, asserting that the position is hereditary. However, this communication contradicts the earlier recommendation dated 30.5.1993, under which respondent No.5 was appointed on a temporary basis as the son of the previous Paricharaka. In the absence of substantial evidence to establish that the position of Paricharaka is hereditary, the petitioner’s claim cannot be sustained. Furthermore, the petitioner is working as a priest in Venugoapala swamy temple and receiving Tasdik allowances.

¶43

I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent No.1.

¶44

9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶45

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional civil court to adjudicate his claim regarding whether the position of Paricharaka is hereditary.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:50358 WP No. 5230 of 2023

¶48

In the event the petitioner approaches the jurisdictional civil court, the court is directed to adjudicate the matter based strictly on the material on record, without being influenced by any observations made in this order or by respondent No.1 in the impugned order.

¶49

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶50

In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/2023 does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶53

Sri S a Veerabhadra Prasad v. the Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri S a Veerabhadra Prasad v. the Commissioner of Endowments

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanumantha Mogaveera Vs the State of Karnataka

Harin Kumar Hp Vs Union of India

Sri B v Amarnath Gupta Vs the Branch Manager

Victory Sports and Cultural Association Club Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. T. R. Vishnumurthy Vs Union Bank of India

Shrikara K M Vs the State of Karnataka