In this writ petition, a Muslim petitioner challenged a notification by a Tamil Nadu temple-run self-financing college that restricted employment to only Hindus. The High Court of Madras examined the applicability of Article 16(1) and 16(2).
The writ petition was dismissed, conceding the Warrant of Commission Petitions were closed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.No.22766 of 2021 and
W.M.P.Nos.23993 & 23994 of 2021
A.Suhail
... Petitioner
Vs.
Chennai-600 009.
Chennai-600 034.
....Respondents
Prayer :-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the notification viz., employment Page Nos.1/12
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
advertisement (Proceedings Nil dated Nil) which was published in Dinakaran Daily dated 13.10.2021 on the file of the third respondent quash the same and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to compete for the above post of Office Assistant.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravichandran, AGP Nos.1 & 2
For Respondent-3:Mr.S.Surya for A.S.Kailasam & Associates
O R D E R
Challenging the proceedings of the notification of the third respondent viz., employment advertisement (Proceedings Nil dated Nil) which was published in Dinakaran Daily dated 13.10.2021, the present petition has been preferred. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to compete for the post of Office Assistant.
2. Heard both sides.
Page Nos.2/12
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
petition is as follows:
3.1. The third respondent herein issued a notification on 13.10.2021 for making appointments in Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Arts and Science College, Kolathur and called for walk in interview for various posts and also invited applications for the posts of Assistant, Junior Assistant/Typist, Office Assistant, Watchman, Cleaner and Sweeper for which interview to be held on 18.10.2021 at 2.00 pm. One of the conditions stated in the notification is that only “Hindus” can apply for all the above posts.
3.2. The petitioner herein is a Tamil Muslim by birth and due to
the aforesaid condition, he could not be eligible for attending the interview for the post of Office Assistant. Aggrieved over the said condition in the notification dated 13.10.2021, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition.
Page Nos.3/12
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
said provisions is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“16.Equality of opportunity in matters of the public employment:
(1)There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
(2)No citizens shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect or, any employment or office under the State.”
Hence, the condition imposed by the third respondent is unconstitutional. He further referred to Article 16(5) of the Constitution of India and the same reads as under:
“16(5).- Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that the incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular religion or belonging to a particular denomination.”
He contended that the above Article 16(5) will be applicable only for
the appointment in the Hindu Religious Institution or denominational institution or the governing body of the Hindu Religious institution Page Nos.4/12
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
and not for the college run by the third respondent, as it is only an educational institution and not a religious institution, which is defined in Section 6(18) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (by short “HR & CE” Act) which reads as:
Section 6(18).- “Religious institution” means a math, temple or specific endowment and includes:-
(i) a samadhi or brindhavan; or
(ii)any other institution established or maintained for a religious purpose.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause-
(1)“samadhi” means a place where the mortal remains of a guru, sadhu or saint is interned and used as a place of public religious worship;
(2)“brindhavan” means a place established or maintained in memory of a guru, sadhu or saint and used as a place of public religious worship, but does not include the samadhi;)
“10.Commissioner, etc., to be Hindus.-The
Commissioner, [the Additional Commissioner], [every Joint, Deputy or Assistant Commissioner]
Page Nos.5/12
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
and every other officer or servant appointed to carry out the purpose of this Act, by whomsoever appointment, shall be a person professing the Hindu Religion and shall cease to hold office as such when he ceases to profess that religion.”
Highlighting the above Section, he argued that the aforesaid provision did not prevent the non Hindus from being appointed as teaching staff or other staff of the college, since they do not have any duty concerning the religion.
“37.Article 16 (5) which has virtually gone unnoticed till date and, therefore, may now be seen is in the following terms:
“16(5)-Nothing in this Article shall affect the operation of any law which provides that an incumbent of an office in connection with the affairs of any religious or denominational institution or any member of the governing body thereof shall be a person professing a particular
Page Nos.6/12
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
religion or belonging to a particular denomination.”
38. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision i.e. Article 16(5), fortified by the debates that had taken place in the Constituent Assembly, according to us, protects the appointment of Archakas from a particular denomination, if so required to be made, by the Agamas holding the field. The debates in the Constituent Assembly referred to discloses that the suggestion that the operation of Article 16(5) should be restricted to appointment in offices connected with administration of a religious institution was negatived. The exception in Article 16(5), therefore, would cover an office in a temple which also requires performance of religious function. In fact, the above though not expressed by the Constitution Bench in Sheshammal (supra).
Page Nos.7/12
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
be made. He further submitted that administrating an educational institution is a secular activity and not a religious activity and Article 25 and 26 will not come to the rescue of the respondents. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the petition has to be allowed.
Page Nos.8/12
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
regards employment are not applicable. He contended that the posts which are the subject issue of the petition falls under the category of self financing institution. He argued that the college does not fall within the category of the State and hence, Article 16(5) will apply. Hence, he prayed this Court to dismiss the petition.
materials available on record.
Page Nos.9/12
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
14.11.2024
Index: Yes Order: Speaking NCC : Yes DP
Page Nos.10/12
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
To
Page Nos.11/12
W.P.No.22766 of 2021
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
DP
ORDER MADE IN W.P.No.22766 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.23993 & 23994 of 2021
14.11.2024
Page Nos.12/12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a self-financing college run by a temple is governed by Article 16(1) and 16(2) or if it falls under the exception of Article 16(5) allowing religious qualifications.
Whether Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 mandates that appointment in a temple-run college must be restricted to Hindus.
Whether the petitioner was correctly excluded from competing for the post of Office Assistant due to his Muslim religion under the notifications of the temple-affiliated institution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam Vs Government of Tamil NaduReferred¶64
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam Vs Government of Tamil Nadu, 2016 (2) SCC 725 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
A. Suhail
State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, HR & CE Department
The Commissioner, HR & CE Department
The Joint Commissioner/Executive Officer, HR & CE Department, Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Arts and Science College
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
