JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The 2nd respondent in this writ petition who was functioning as the Devaswom Commissioner in the service of the Travancore Devaswom Board was due to retire on superannuation on the forenoon of 19th August 1971. The petitioner in the writ petition was the seniormost officer in the category of Deputy Devaswom Commissioners, and he was apparently expecting to attain the position of Devaswom Commissioner on the retirement of the 2nd respondent. On 11th August 1971 the Travancore Devaswom Board (1st respondent) issued the order Ext. P-2 sanctioning the petitioner's promotion as acting Devaswom Commissioner in the vacancy which was to arise on the retirement of the 2nd respondent with effect from the forenoon of 19th August 1971, and simultaneously posting the petitioner on other duty as Intelligence and Investigation Officer in a newly create temporary post bearing that designation and having the same pay scale as is attached to the post of Devaswom Commissioner. Under Ext. P-2 the Board has also sanctioned re-entertainment of 2nd respondent into its service as Devaswom Commissioner for a term of one year from 19th August 1971 in the vacancy occasioned by the posting of the petitioner to other duty as Intelligence and Investigation Officer. The petitioner has brought this writ petition seeking to quash Ext. P-2 in so far as it directs him to be on other duty as Intelligence and Investigation Officer and provides for the re-entertainment in service of the 2nd respondent as Devaswom Commissioner for a term of one year. 2. The petitioner contends that the action taken by the Board for re-entertaining the 2nd respondent into its service as Devaswom Commissioner after he has passed the age of superannuation is without jurisdiction and is contrary to the provision contained in rule 60 (a) of the Kerala Service Rules which have been made applicable to the personnel employed in the service of the Board. It is also contended that in placing the petitioner on other duty as Intelligence and Investigation Officer and thereby depriving him of the post of Devaswom Commissioner to which he claims to be legitimately entitled, the Board has inflicted on the petitioner a penalty of reduction in rank without conforming to the procedure prescribed by the rules and in contravention of the principles of natural justice. Elaborating this contention it was argued that the post of Devaswom Commissioner is a statutory post to which are attached various statutory powers and functions and that once a person has been appointed to that capacity he cannot be divested of those powers and functions except by an order lawfully passed removing him from the said post for valid reasons. 3. On behalf of the respondent-Board and also on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is submitted that there is no provision in any of the rules governing the service of the personnel employed under the Board which entitled the petitioner who was functioning as Deputy Devaswom Commissioner to claim, as of right, a promotion to the post of Devaswom Commissioner on a vacancy arising in that post, and that it was left entirely to the discretion of the Board to fill up the said vacancy in such manner as it considered suitable in the best interests of the administration of its service. On this basis it is argued that no legal right whatever of the petitioner could be said to have been infringed even if the petitioner was wholly denied any promotion consequent on the attainment by the 2nd respondent of the age of superannuation and his retirement from service pursuant thereto. It is also submitted by the respondents that the Board could have retained the 2nd respondent in its service on its being satisfied on public grounds that his continuance in service was necessary in the exigencies of administration. But, instead of adopting this course which would have resulted in the denial of any chance of promotion to the petitioner what was done was the Board decided on compassionate grounds that the petitioner who is also nearing the age of retirement need not be denied promotion and hence promoted him to the cadre of Devaswom Commissioner and posted the petitioner on other duty to the newly created equivalent post while continuing the 2nd respondent as Devaswom Commissioner. This, the respondent submits, was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the Board and has only operated to the benefit of the petitioner and not at all to his detriment. In regard to the petitioner's contention that he has been subjected to a reduction of rank, the 1st respondent points out that the petitioner had not been promoted to the post of Devaswom Commissioner independently of the order Ext. In regard to the petitioner's contention that he has been subjected to a reduction of rank, the 1st respondent points out that the petitioner had not been promoted to the post of Devaswom Commissioner independently of the order Ext. P-2 and that his promotion to that post was only as part of the integral scheme to place him on other duty because the Board had already simultaneously taken a decision that the 2nd respondent should be retained in service as Devaswom Commissioner by re-entertaining him in service for a term of one year. Even otherwise, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner has no right to insist that he should be continued in the post of Devaswom Commissioner and should not be made to work in any other equivalent post. The allegation that the re-entertainment in service of the 2nd respondent has not been ordered on public grounds or for reasons of exigencies of service is denied by the Board, and it is stated that the Board took the said decision since it was firmly of opinion that the retention of the 2nd respondent in service for one year was for public good and that it was necessary for the proper execution of certain schemes like the 'Kodi Archana' in Sabarimalai temple, etc. which he had already started. 4. After having heard counsel appearing on both sides, I am satisfied that the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents have to be upheld and that this writ petition has only to be dismissed. Section 29 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act states that Devaswom Department shall, subject to the supervision, direction and control of the Board, be under the Devaswom Commissioner who shall be appointed by the Board. There is no provision in the Act which lays down the procedure to be followed in making the appointment to the said office, nor has my attention been invited to any rule framed under the Act which touches on the said subject. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Board it has been submitted that there were occasions in the past when the post of Devaswom Commissioner was filled in by appointing competent persons from outside and not by promotion of any of the personnel already in the service of the Board. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Board it has been submitted that there were occasions in the past when the post of Devaswom Commissioner was filled in by appointing competent persons from outside and not by promotion of any of the personnel already in the service of the Board. In the absence of any statutory rule governing the subject it cannot be said that the petitioner, merely by virtue of having been the seniormost amongst the Deputy Devaswom Commissioners, had any vested right to claim that he should be automatically promoted to the post of Commissioner on the said post becoming vacant by the retirement of the 2nd respondent from service on his attaining the age of superannuation. The mere fact that under Ext. P-2 the Board has chosen to give the petitioner a notional promotion as Devaswom Commissioner in the said retirement vacancy while simultaneously posting him as Intelligence and Investigation Officer in the newly created equivalent post carrying the same pay scale will not also enable the petitioner to contend that he has acquired any right to be posted as Devaswom Commissioner. The right, if at all, accrued to him only under Ext. P-2 and that right must necessarily be subject to all the other conditions and stipulations contained in the said order. The petitioner cannot accept one part of Ext. P-2 and repudiate another portion thereof, but must either elect to accept the order as it stands or to give up the benefits accruing to him thereunder. I do not therefore see my way to accept the petitioner's argument that at least by virtue of Ext. P-2 he had acquired a right to hold the post of Devaswom Commissioner and that the further directions contained in that order posting him to work as Intelligence and Investigation Officer and reappointing the 2nd respondent as Devaswom Commissioner amount to a divesting of the petitioner's legal right to hold the said post and that it constitutes a reduction in his rank. So long as no right of the petitioner has been violated and no adverse civil consequences can be said to have been brought to bear on him as a result of his being directed to work in an equivalent post, no question of applying the principles of natural justice arises, and the contention that Ext. So long as no right of the petitioner has been violated and no adverse civil consequences can be said to have been brought to bear on him as a result of his being directed to work in an equivalent post, no question of applying the principles of natural justice arises, and the contention that Ext. P-2 has been passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to show cause is devoid of merit. 5. The petitioner has challenged the re-entertainment of the 2nd respondent's service on the ground that the said action of the Board is not warranted under rule 60 (a) of the Kerala Service Rules. It is not disputed that with respect to the subject of age of compulsory retirement the relevant provisions of the Kerala Service Rules have been made applicable to the employees serving under the Board. Rule 60 (a) of Part I of Kerala Service Rules states: "Except as otherwise provided in these rules the date of compulsory retirement of an officer other than in last grade service is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. He may be retained after this date only with the sanction of Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing, but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very special circumstances.” Though, as the general rule the date of attainment of the age of 55 years has been fixed under the above rule as the date of compulsory retirement of an officer, the power is reserved to the Board —the Board has to be substituted in the place of Government while applying the rules in the K.S.R. to the service of the Board—to retain an employee in its service after the said date provided that it is done on public grounds which are recorded in writing. In the instant case it is seen from the relevant resolution of the Board, a copy of which has been produced along with the counter-affidavit and marked as Ext. In the instant case it is seen from the relevant resolution of the Board, a copy of which has been produced along with the counter-affidavit and marked as Ext. B-1, that the decision to re-entertain the 2nd respondent into its service for a term of one year was taken by the Board in view of the opinion formed by it that the service of such an experienced and honest officer like the 2nd respondent would be of considerable help in successfully implementing the 'Kodi Archana' scheme started by the Sabarimalai Devaswom and some other similar schemes that had been already undertaken. Under rule 60 (a) referred to above it is entirely for the Board to decide whether the continuance of one of its servants beyond the normal date of compulsory retirement is necessary on public grounds. If that authority bona fide forms that opinion, the correctness of such opinion cannot be challenged before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution [see Union of India v. Col. J. N. Sinha and another (1970) II S.C.W.R. 393. It is not possible for me to accept the contention advanced by the petitioner that the grounds stated by the Board in Ext. B-1 for coming to the conclusion that the retention of the 2nd respondent in service was necessary in the interests of its administration are not germane under rule 60 (a). On the other hand, in my opinion, that the retention in service beyond the age of 55 years of an officer of proved honesty and ability would be of help in the matter of implementation of some schemes which had been already commenced by him is a circumstance of undoubted relevance in determining whether or not the exercise of the discretionary power conferred by rule 60 (a) of extending his tenure of service. There is nothing whatever to show that the decision to retain the 2nd respondent in service was taken by the Board on any extraneous considerations and no challenge has been raised by the petitioner against the bona fides underlying the said action. In these circumstances, there is no scope whatever for any interference by this Court with that part of Ext. P-2 which provides for the re-entertainment in service of the 2nd respondent for a term of one year as Devaswom Commissioner. 6. In these circumstances, there is no scope whatever for any interference by this Court with that part of Ext. P-2 which provides for the re-entertainment in service of the 2nd respondent for a term of one year as Devaswom Commissioner. 6. The result then is that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him and this writ petition has only to be dismissed. I do so. The parties will bear their respective costs.