Vellaidurai M Vs The Commissioner

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent in Na.Ka.No. 2316/2024/E4 dated 13.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal and cancel the appointment of the 4^th respondent and made the petitioner to continue as Poosari cum Trustee under the one time pooja scheme in the temple namely Arulmighu Paalathadi Sudalaimadaswami Thirukovil, Arugankulam Village, Tirunelveli Taluk and District.

¶16

1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.8776 of 2026

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Marimuthu

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.R.Parthiban Government Standing Counsel for R1 to R3

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order, dated 13.02.2026.

¶23

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, from the time of his grandfather, they have been serving as the poojari of Arulmighu Paalathadi Sudalaimadaswami Thirukovil, situated at Arugankulam Village, Tirunelveli Taluk and District. Even the petitioner was expressly appointed and recognized as the poojari by an order dated 28.07.2023 and he has been discharging his duties in accordance with law. After the appointment, suddenly

¶24

one Murugan [the fourth respondent herein] started to be the poojari of the temple. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation that unnecessarily, the said third person is interfering with his right as poojari and requested the said person should be removed and his poojariship should be continued. The same was rejected by the impugned order dated 13.02.2026. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. He would further submit that when the petitioner was

¶25

2/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.8776 of 2026

¶28

validly appointed as poojari, and subsequently no cancellation whatsoever of the said order has been done, by giving any opportunity whatsoever, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶29

Per contra, the learned Government Standing Counsel would submit that when there were grave allegations against the petitioner, the petitioner was sought to be relieved and the fourth respondent was sought to be appointed as a poojari.

¶30

Eventhough notice was served on the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent has chosen not to contest the writ petition.

¶31

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶32

Even if there is any allegation against the petitioner, if there is a provision to simply relieve him by service without levelling the charges, even then a show cause notice has to be issued, and, without causing any stigma, the petitioner can be relieved. If the petitioner has to be removed from service on the ground of allegations, the charge memorandum has to be issued and an opportunity of hearing has to be given and an enquiry should be conducted, and

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.8776 of 2026

¶36

thereafter, only he has to be removed. Without following any one of the procedures, simply, the fourth respondent cannot be permitted and the petitioner cannot be removed from the poojariship.

¶37