IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 22978 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.PRAVEEN KUMAR, PUROHITHAN, THIRUVALLOM DEVASWOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVALLOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVAWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OOF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEVASWOM DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THIRUVALLOM SREE PARASURAMA SWAMI TEMPLE BHAJANA SANGHAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVALLOM DEVASWOM, THIRUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. KERALA KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMATHY, THIRUVALLOM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY THE' PRESIDENT, THIRUVALLOM DEVASWOM, THIRUVALLOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. N.VIJAYAKUMAR, PUROHITHAN(THEERTHAKADAV) THIRUVALLOM DEVASWOM, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVALLOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R8 SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR FOR R8 SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 22978 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 29.6.05 EXT.P1(A). A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25.4.05 EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).17034/2005 DATED 24.5.2007 EXT.P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 29.5.91 EXT.P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.4520/1992 (K) DATED 29.10.93 EXT.P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.2.2005 SUBMITTED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE EXT.P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.ROC 20510/98/MIS DATED 27.7.2000 EXT.P7- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.7457/97/EST.1 DATED 3.8.98 EXT.P8- A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SHOWING THE INAUGURATION OF THE NEW SERVICE UNION EXT.P9- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER (INSPECTION) DATED 22.10.07 EXT.P10- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2071/05/MIS.1 DATED 30.4.09 EXT.P11- A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C).13500/2009 (F) DATED 28.5.09 EXT.P12- A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).13500/2009 DATED 4.6.09 EXT.P13- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.7.09 EXT.P14- A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER NORMS DATED 10.2.05 EXT.P15- A TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO.10016/2008 DATED 24.3.08 EXT.P16- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.8.09 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR DEVASWOM BOARD. EXT.P17- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.8.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, TDB EXT.P18- A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 13.4.08 EXT.P19- A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 17.12.08 EXT.P19(A)- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED AN ACTION COUNCIL AGAINST 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 14.8.06 EXT.P20- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY FORMER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DATED 13.11.08 EXT.P21- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THANTHRI DATED 15.10.04 WP(C).No. 22978 of 2009 EXT.P22- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.2721/2000 DATED 29.5.01 EXT.P23- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.3.05 EXT.P24- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DATED 28.7.06 EXT.P25- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.2.09 BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER EXT.P26- A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MALAYALA BRAHMINA SAMAJAM CHERTHALA UNIT EXT.P27- A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.2.04 EXT.P28- A TRUE COPY OF THE EXT.P1(a) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY AND KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY EXT.P29- A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE BOARD IN W.P.(C).20236/04 DATED 26.1.05 EXT.P30- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER CMP 2721/01 DATED 4.7.01 EXT.P31- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER ON THE ENQUIRY REPORT EXT.P32- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER DATED 16.4.02 EXT.P33- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.4.01 EXT.P34- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.2.08 EXT.P35- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.9.08 EXT.P36- A TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DIRECTING TO TAKE EVIDENCE FROM ALL INTERESTED PARTIES EXT.P37- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.3.91 IN O.P.8673/89 EXT.P38- A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 18.5.99 EXT.R8(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26.11.2004 EXT.R8(b)- TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 1.5.07 BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE EXT.R8(c)- TRRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ROC 1271/05 MIS.B.DATED 5.5.09 EXT.R8(d)- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ROC 3276/96/MIS.DATED 17.7.91 EXT.R8(e)- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.5.07 IN W.P.(C).2023 OF 2004 EXT.R8(f)- TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 26.2.08 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXT.R8(g)- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ROC 3706/08/SUIT DATED 9.4.08 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).22978/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT The dispute raised in this writ petition relates, broadly, to the appointment of a Purohithan in the Thiruvallom Temple coming under the Thiruvananthapuram Group, Travancore Devaswom Board. 2. Petitioner is a Purohithan in the Thiruvallom Devaswom. 8th respondent is also a Purohithan. There is a dispute as to whether the 8th respondent is entitled and eligible to function as a Purohithan in the Parasurama Swamy Temple at Thiruvallom or whether he can function as a Purohithan only in the Theerthakadavu attached to the same Temple. The parties have joined issue in a fairly intense manner and the pleadings are quite elaborate. But in the nature of the directions which I propose to issue and on which I have also heard the parties, in the course of the arguments addressed by them, I will refer only to the bare facts necessary for the disposal of the case. W.P.(C).22978/09 2 3. By Ext.P3 notification dated 29.5.1991, the Board invited applications from eligible persons, for appointment as Devaswom Purohitha Lavanam, coming within the purview of the Thiruvananthapuram Group in the Travancore Devaswom Board. Applications were invited from qualified hands between the age group of 18 and 35. They should have had an educational qualification not less than 9th standard and they were also required to produce a certificate from a Thantri certifying that they were proficient to preside over religious functions forming part of the last rites performed by bereaved (Balitharpanam). The 8th respondent was considered and as evidenced by Ext.R8(d), he was appointed as a part time Purohithan in the Devaswom. 8th respondent thereafter, started discharging his functions as a Purohithan. One Sri.Sankaran Elayath since retired was then functioning as Purohithan in the Temple. It may have to be noted at this juncture that at any given point of time, there are two persons functioning in the Parasurama Swamy Temple at Thiruvallom, one Purohithan functions inside the Temple and the other functions at the Theerthakadavu. The nature of the rights performed in the W.P.(C).22978/09 3 Kadavu and those which are performed inside the Temple are different. It seems that Sankaran Elayath had challenged the appointment of the 8th respondent in O.P.4520/1992. It further seems that another person had also challenged the appointment of the 8th respondent in this regard. By a common judgment, Ext.P4, a Bench of this Court directed the Board to consider the complaint filed by Sri.Sankaran Elayath, as also the complaint filed by one Madhavan Namboodiri and the Secretary of the N.S.S Karayogam, Thiruvallom. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the Devaswom Board that pursuant to the directions in Ext.P4, an enquiry was conducted by a competent authority of the Board. But copy of the report has not been placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a decision was taken to confine the 8th respondent to the Theerthakadavu. 4. It seems that the 8th respondent thereafter, continued as Purohithan and he continued to discharge his functions at the Theerthakadavu during the tenure of Sankaran Elayath. Sankaran Elayath retired on 27.7.2000 and there is a dispute W.P.(C).22978/09 4 as to whether the 8th respondent was then posted as a Mukhya Purohithan in the same Temple. Whereas the 8th respondent and the Board confirm that the 8th respondent was so posted as Mukhya Purohithan, petitioner affirms that one Narayana Sarma was posted as Mukhya Purohithan. Copy of the order of appointment insofar as Narayana Sarma is not placed on record. 5. Thereafter, by Ext.P1(a) notification dated 25.4.2005, Board invited applications from eligible qualified persons for appointment in “Kshethra Purohitha Lavanam” in an existing vacancy in the Thiruvallom Devaswom. Going by Ext.P1(a), applicants should have belonged to Elayath Community and they should also be proficient to guide persons in 'Balitharpanam'. The scale of pay given in Ext.P1 (a) is Rs.1850-2810/- 6. It seems that Ext.P1(a) notification was challenged by the 8th respondent before this Court in W.P.(C).17034/2005. The said writ petition was disposed of only on 24.5.2007. The petitioner came to be appointed in the meanwhile. Writ W.P.(C).22978/09 5 petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment holding that going by Ext.P1(a) notification, 8th respondent was not qualified for the post and that at any rate, petitioner herein was appointed in the meanwhile and the 8th respondent herein had not taken steps to serve the petitioner herein, the party respondent in W.P.(C).17034/2005. 7. In the meanwhile, 8th respondent himself was placed under suspension on 3.3.2005. Earlier a Deputy Superintendent of Police had conducted an enquiry and he recommended that disciplinary action be taken against the 8th respondent. Disciplinary action had been taken against the 8th respondent and it had resulted in Ext.P7 order dated 3.8.1998 by which a punishment of barring of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the 8th respondent. 8. It seems that thereafter, another disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the 8th respondent in the year 2000 and it resulted in Ext.P6 order passed by the Commissioner. Ext.P6 was later challenged by the 8th W.P.(C).22978/09 6 respondent in an appeal before the Board and the Board had directed that he be reinstated in service and he was so reinstated in service, as per order dated 30.4.2001. 9. It was later that the 8th respondent was suspended from service from 3.3.2005 and it was during his period of suspension that the petitioner was appointed and the petitioner started functioning as a priest (Purohithan) inside the Temple. There are no records indicating who was functioning as a Purohithan in the Theerthakadavu, after the appointment of the petitioner herein as a Purohithan in the Temple. But it is not disputed that two different persons, were at any given point of time, functioning as Purohithan, one inside the Temple and the other at the Theerthakadavu. 10. The recent dispute arose when Ext.P9 order was passed by the Deputy Devaswom Commissioner deciding to close the disciplinary proceedings that had been initiated against the 8th respondent. This was followed by Ext.P10 order passed by the Board on 30.4.2009 directing reinstatement of the 8th respondent, after the closure of all W.P.(C).22978/09 7 disciplinary proceedings against him. As per Ext.P10 order, 8th respondent was reinstated and posted as Mukhya Purohithan in the Thiruvallom Temple. 11. Exts.P9 and P10 herein were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C).13500/2009. By Ext.P11 interim order, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the petitioner herein shall continue as Priest of the Temple and the 3rd respondent therein will continue as Priest in the Kadavu for the time being. Thereafter, by Ext.P12, this Court directed the Chief Commissioner to take a final decision in the matter. Relevant portion of Ext.P12 judgment reads as follows. “Thus facts being in serious dispute between the parties, it will be appropriate as agreed between the parties that a final decision be taken after hearing all concerned by the Chief Commissioner. We direct the Chief Commissioner to take a final decision in the matter after hearing all concerned. A copy of the writ petition along with this judgment may be placed before the Chief Commissioner by W.P.(C).22978/09 8 either of the parties. A decision will be taken by the Chief Commissioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from today. The interim arrangement made by this Court will continue till then and based on the decision taken appropriate orders will be issued by the Chief Commissioner.” 13. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P13 decision was taken by the Chief Commissioner, and a communication was issued by the Secretary in the name of the Board. It is affirmed that the two posts are interchangeable and that persons could be transferred from one post to another and therefore, Purohithan inside the Temple and at the Theerthakadavu will discharge their duties for a term of one year commencing from 1st of April and it shall be alternated between the petitioner and the 8th respondent. It is Ext.P13 which has been challenged in this writ petition. 14. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Board as also by the 8th respondent. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. I heard Mr.D.Somasundaram as also Mr.Sreekumar learned W.P.(C).22978/09 9 counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Krishna Menon, learned counsel appearing for the Devaswom Board, Mr.P.Ravindran, learned senior counsel along with Mr.Ajith Kumar for the 8th respondent and Mr.Anchal Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. 15. Parties on either side had addressed elaborate arguments on not only the issues emanating from Ext.P3 notification originally issued in the year 1991, as also the terms of Ext.P1(a) notification but also on the nature of the disciplinary action that was initiated against the 8th respondent on more than one occasion. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the terms of Ext.P3 notification, leading to the appointment of the 8th respondent in the year 1991, and Ext.P1(a) notification leading to the appointment of the petitioner in the year 2005 are different. This, it is contended, indicates that the two posts are different and that the petitioner was appointed as a Kshethra Purohithan indicating that he was intended to discharge his functions inside the Temple. 8th respondent had, on the other hand, been appointed as Purohithan in the W.P.(C).22978/09 10 Devaswom and his original appointment was during the tenure of Sankaran Elayath, who had retired only in the year 2000. It is contended that the 8th respondent had therefore, discharged his functions as Purohithan at Theerthakadavu from the year 1992 when he was originally appointed till 2000. Thereafter, he may have discharged functions as Purohithan in the Temple for a short while. That was only because a regular appointment to the post of Purohithan in the Temple was made only in the year 2005. Such ad hoc discharge of functions by the 8th respondent, contends the petitioner, would not give him the right to claim that he is entitled to discharge functions as a Priest (Purohithan) inside the Temple. Once a regular appointment is made to the post of Purohithan inside the Temple, then, he can claim a right to discharge functions only in the permanent post to which he is appointed namely as a Purohithan in the Theerthakadavu. 16. Reference is made to the observations made by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment which was, on a writ petition inter alia filed by Sri.Sankaran Elayath challenging the very W.P.(C).22978/09 11 appointment of the 8th respondent as a Purohithan in the Theerthakadavu and the directions issued by the Division Bench to the Board to enquire into the appointment of the 8th respondent as a Purohithan in the Theerthakadavu. Reference is also made to Ext.P13 judgment, which arose out of a complaint filed by Sankaran Elayath, when he was sought to be transferred from Thiruvallam Temple. Petitioner also referred to Ext.P2 judgment, which was rendered on a writ petition filed by the 8th respondent challenging the very notification, Ext.P1(a), pursuant to which the petitioner herein was appointed as per Ext.P2 order. It was contended that the Board had filed a counter affidavit in the earlier writ petition affirming that the 8th respondent had been appointed as a Priest in the Theerthakadavu. They cannot now change the stand in the present writ petition. It was further contended that though the entire dispute was left open to be decided by the Board as per Ext.P2 judgment, order that has been impugned in the present case shows that none of the relevant aspects have been considered by the Chief Commissioner discharging the functions of the Board. W.P.(C).22978/09 12 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Board and learned senior counsel for the 8th respondent contended that the post of Purohithan, which is at present confined only at the Thiruvallom Temple coming under the Thiruvananthapuram Group, has a strength of only two and at any given point of time, there are two persons who were called upon to discharge functions as a Purohithan in the Thiruvallom Temple. Members of the Elayath Community have alone been appointed as Purohithan and as per Ext.P3 notification, applicants were to be Hindus as such. As a matter of fact, only persons belonging to the Elayath community were considered. 8th respondent was interviewed and he had produced proof to show that he belonged to the Elayath Community. His appointment in the year 1991 as per Ext.R8(b) was as a part time Purohithan in the Thiruvallom Devaswom and the post itself is described as “Purohitha Lavanam”. Later, the part time post was upgraded as full time post in the year 1992 as per orders of the Board dated 10.2.1992 referred to in the counter affidavit filed by the Board and though the 8th respondent W.P.(C).22978/09 13 was discharging functions as a Purohithan in the Theerthakadavu during the tenure of Sankaran Elayath, after the retirement of the latter, he was discharging functions as a Priest inside the Temple. No doubt, Ext.P1(a) notification, which led to the appointment of the petitioner, refers to the members of the Elayath Community and essentially the 8th respondent had approached this Court apprehending that his tenure as a Priest in the Thiruvallam Devaswom would be disturbed by the appointment of an another person. Nature of appointment of the 8th respondent was not specifically discussed by the Bench of this Court which had delivered Ext.P2 judgment. Once a Bench of this Court had, as per Ext.P12 judgment, directed the Board to reconsider the matter. The nature of the appointment of the 8th respondent and the petitioner was considered and it was found that both the posts are borne on the same time scale of pay. Essentially the qualifications prescribed for the posts are the same. They belong to the same Lavanam, namely “Purohitha Lavanam” and only such persons can discharge such functions as proposed in the Thiruvallom Temple and it was decided that the petitioner W.P.(C).22978/09 14 and the 8th respondent shall alternate in the Temple and in the Theerthakadavu for one year each. The arrangement is perfectly reasonable and there is no reason why the petitioner should consider himself aggrieved, it is contended. 18. Though Mr.Somasundaram had made reference to the earlier report given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police as evidenced by Exts.P5 and P6 order passed by the Devaswom Commissioner respectively and Ext.P7 order passed by the Board on an earlier occasion to contend that the 8th respondent is completely unsuitable to be posted as a Priest inside the Temple, I refrain from rendering any opinion on the suitability of the 8th respondent to be posted as a Priest inside the Temple on the basis of the said report or contentions which had been referred to in the earlier judgment on the said matter. It is upto the Board to decide whether a person concerned is suitable to discharge functions as a Purohithan inside the Temple. No doubt, the present order that has been impugned in the writ petition does not reveal an application of mind by the Chief Commissioner to the said aspect and therefore, it may also W.P.(C).22978/09 15 be a matter that may have to be kept in mind in this regard. But it is not for this Court, with these materials on record, to specifically indicate, let alone decide whether the 8th respondent can be called upon to discharge the functions of a Priest inside the Temple. 19. In my opinion, crucial aspects are whether the post of Purohithan inside the Thiruvallam Temple and that in the Theerthakadavu are the same posts, requiring similar qualifications, and therefore, the person who is appointed as Purohithan in the Thiruvallam Devaswom can be posted either inside the Temple or in the Theerthakadavu. These are matters that can be decided on a verification of certain crucial aspects relating to the nature of the functions that are discharged by the Purohithan, as to whether the appointing authority had at the relevant point of time, decided that the post of Purohithan in the Thiruvallam Devaswom is one that could have an incumbent in the Temple as also in the Theerthakadavu and therefore, appointment of a person as Purohithan by itself cannot result in a person claiming that he should be posted only in the W.P.(C).22978/09 16 Temple and not in the Theerthakadavu as such. In other words, the crucial issue is whether the post is one of Purohithan in the Devaswom and therefore, an incumbent could be legitimately called upon to discharge his functions inside the Temple or in the Theerthakadavu without there being any disturbance to the nature of the duties which the incumbent is called upon to discharge. These matters are not kept in mind by the Board while passing Ext.P13 order. I have also been taken through the notes of hearing drawn up by the Chief Commissioner, who in fact now discharges the functions in the absence of a full Board as such. For all these reasons, I am of the view that an appropriate decision has not been taken by the Board (or the Chief Commissioner as the case may be) pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment. In these circumstances, I am constrained to remand the matter again to the Chief Commissioner for appropriate decision. Chief Commissioner shall keep in mind the following aspects before taking a reasoned decision, for the purpose of complying with the directions issued in Ext.P12 judgment. W.P.(C).22978/09 17 (a).Whether the post of Purohithan, referred to in Ext.P3 as also in Ext.P1(a) notification, in the Thiruvallom Devaswom coming under the Thiruvananthapuram Group of the Travancore Devaswom Board is one and the same. (b).Was it the intention of the Board at the time of issuance of Ext.P3, to create a separate post of Purohithan in the Theerthakadavu and thereby provide for the creation of two separate posts of Purohithan, one inside the Temple and another at Theerthakadavu ? (c).What has been the time scale of pay attached to the post of Purohithan and whether the incumbent discharging functions as a Purohithan inside the Temple and discharging functions as a Purohithan in the Theerthakadavu drew the same scale of pay and the same emoluments as such. (d).Is there any custom which stands in the way of a W.P.(C).22978/09 18 person discharging functions as a Purohithan at the Theerthakadavu, also discharging functions as a Purohithan inside the Temple, at the same point of time or at least alternatively ? (e).Going by Ext.P1(a) notification, was it the intention of the Board then to effect appointment to the post of Purohithan inside the Temple alone and whether the person who was to be appointed pursuant to Ext.P1 (a) notification, would have gathered the impression that his appointment will be as a Purohithan inside the Temple and not otherwise. (f).Whether the 8th respondent was eligible and qualified to be appointed as a Purohithan in the Temple, pursuant to Ext.P3 notification issued in the year 1991. 20. Keeping in mind the aforementioned aspects, a further enquiry shall be conducted by the Chief Commissioner, who is now discharging functions of the Board and fresh order W.P.(C).22978/09 19 shall be passed after hearing the petitioner and the 8th respondent or their authorized representatives, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ext.P13 shall stand quashed for the aforementioned purpose. The interim order already passed by this Court on 12.8.2009 shall continue till such fresh orders