Judgment :- PADMANABHAN, J. A batch of writ petitions is being disposed of by a common judgment. The short question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to the date from which the trustees appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments (Administration)Dept., Madras Department, for short H.R. and C.E. department, began to hold their office. 2. As a pattern, we shall refer to the facts in W.P. 4218 of 1982 The respondent, H.R. and C.E., department, called for applications for appointment of non-hereditary trustees to Arulmigu Abirameswarar temple from among the Hindu worshipping public residing in and around the village. The petitioner was one of the applicants. The petitioner and two others namely, Rasu and Subbaraya Udayar, were appointed trustees in exercising the respondents powers under S. 49 read with S. 47 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order provides that the trustees shall hold office for a period of three years from the date of the order. It is the petitioners case that by the order dated 18th June, 1979 itself the respondent directed that the fit person who was administering the affairs of the temple should hand over charge of the chairman, Board of Trustees, only after the election of such Chairman. The respondent directed the Inspector, H.R. and C.E., Villupuram, to convene a meeting of the trustees for the purpose of electing a Chairman. Accordingly, the petitioner was elected as Chairman. The respondent thereafter by his proceedings dated 2nd August, 1981, directed the fit person to hand over charge of the temple to the petitioner. The petitioner assumed office as the Chairman and on 5th August, 1981 he along with Co-trustees took oath of office and secrecy, administered by the Inspector, H.R. and C.E., Villupuram. Therefore, the petitioner, and other co-trustees are entitled to hold the office as trustees for a period of three years from 5th August, 1981 till 4th August, 1984. On 21st March, 1982, the respondent issued a notification calling for applications for appointment as non-hereditary trustees to the same temple. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition for the issue of a writ of Mandamus restraining the respondent from appointing non-hereditary trustees to the said temple pursuant to the notice dated 21st March, 1982. 3. The short submission made by Mr. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition for the issue of a writ of Mandamus restraining the respondent from appointing non-hereditary trustees to the said temple pursuant to the notice dated 21st March, 1982. 3. The short submission made by Mr. T.L. Rammohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the Act, the Board of Trustees are entitled to hold office as soon as the appointment of trustee is made. The Assistance Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. department is enjoined to convene a meeting for the election of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. The Board of trustees can be said to be regularly constituted when a meeting of the appointed trustees is convened and one of the trustees is elected as the Chairman. Further, under the rules, the trustees are obliged to take an oath professing their faith in the Hindu religion. Only thereafter, the trustees can assume office. He further argued that till the newly appointed trustees are put in possession of the temple, the trustees will not be deemed to have assumed office. Mr. Rammohans further contention is that as a matter of practice all the non-hereditary trustees appointed under the Act shall take an oath as provided under the Rules and unless and until such an oath is taken the newly appointed Trustees cannot become qualified to hold the office of the trustees. 4. The learned Government Pleader contends that the rules do not provide that a trustee should take an oath of office and only servants of the temple are enjoined to take an oath professing Hindu religion. Further, according to the learned Government Pleader, the trustees must be deemed to have entered their office from the date of appointment. The trustees cannot claim the office either from the date on which the election of the Chairman took place or from the date on which they got possession of the temple and the properties. If they do not get possession of the temple land the properties from the person who is in charge thereof, it is for them to take appropriate proceedings as provided under the Act for recovery of the same. Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan, appearing for some of the respondents in the writ petitions, supported the argument of the learned Government Pleader. If they do not get possession of the temple land the properties from the person who is in charge thereof, it is for them to take appropriate proceedings as provided under the Act for recovery of the same. Mr. M.N. Padmanabhan, appearing for some of the respondents in the writ petitions, supported the argument of the learned Government Pleader. Another contention that is raised is that having accepted the office of the trusteeship on the basis of the order which stated that they will hold office for a period of three years from the date of the order, it will not be open to the trustees to say that they are entitled to hold office, for a period of three years from the date, different from the date of the order. 5. The question for consideration is how far the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners can be sustained. S. 47 of the Act reads as follows— “Where a religious institution included in the list published under S. 46 or in respect of which the Assistant Commissioner has no power to appoint trustees has no hereditary trustee, the Commissioner shall constitute a Board of Trustees, consisting of not less than three and not more than five persons appointed by him, of whom one shall be a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribes.” S. 47(2) confers powers on the Commissioner to appoint non hereditary trustees for an institution where after an enquiry he considers for reasons to be recorded that the affairs of the institution are not, and are not likely to be, properly managed by the hereditary trustee or trustees. Sub-S. 4 of S. 47 confers right upon the hereditary trustee or trustees to file an application to the Court to set aside or modify such order. S. 47(3) reads as follows— “Every trustee appointed under sub-S. (1) and subject to the result of an application, if any, filed under sub-S. (4) and every non-hereditary trustee appointed under sub-S. (2) shall hold office for a term of three years, unless in the meanwhile the trustee is removed or dismissed or his resignation is accepted by the Commissioner or he otherwise ceases to be a trustee.” The proviso is not necessary for the purpose of this case. S. 26 prescribes qualification of trustees to be appointed—(a) if he does not profess the Hindu religion; (b) to (f) omitted. S. 48 reads as follows— 1. In the case of a religious institution for which a Board of Trustees is constituted under sub-S. (1) of S. 47 the Board of Trustees shall, within such period as may be prescribed, elect one of its members to be its Chairman and if no Chairman is elected within the period so prescribed, the Commissioner shall nominate the Chairman. 2. In the case of any other religious institution having more than one trustee, the trustees of such institution shall, within such period as may be prescribed, elect one from among themselves to be the Chairman, and if no Chairman is elected within the period so prescribed, the Commissioner shall nominate the Chairman.” S. 48 (3) provides that the Chairman elected or nominated under sub-S. (1) or sub-S. (2) shall hold office for such period as may be prescribed. S. 116 confers powers on the Government to make rules and it states that the Government may, by notification, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for the manner of proof of the fact that a person professes Hindu religion for the purposes of this Act. In accordance with S. 116 (2)(xxiv) rules have been framed which are called the Manner of Proof of Professing Hindu Religion Rules. Rr. 2 and 3 read as follows— “2. Every person appointed or deemed to be appointed under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Madras Act 22 of 1959) shall sign a pledge in the form appended to these rules. 3. The pledge referred to in R. 2 may be caused to be taken by the appointee in the immediate presence of the Executive Officer, or Chairman, Board of Trustees, of the religious institution before the prescribed deity in the nearest Hindu Religious institution selected for the purpose and two witnesses and the fact of having done so shall be reduced to writing and placed before the head of the office, who shall record the same and keep it as a permanent record along with the service register of the person concerned. Explanation : In the case of new appointees the pledge referred to herein shall be taken before they enter upon their duties. The form is given thus:— Form prescribed under R. 2 issued under S. 116(2)(24) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959— ‘I ..son residing at village taluk district, appointed to the post of do solemnly swear that I am a Hindu by birth and profess the Hindu religion.” 6. On the basis of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the contention of the petitioner is that before a trustee assumes office, it is necessary that an oath of office should be taken as provided for in the rules and unless and until the trustees take the oath they cannot be said to have assumed office. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the rules relating to taking of oath do not apply to the trustees, but are meant only for the employees of the religious institution. The learned Government Pleader further stated that it has never been the practice for the trustees to take oath. It also filed a counter-affidavit to the effect that the petitioners have not taken such oath on their appointment as trustees. 7. We have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the term of office of a trustee will be for a period of three years from the date of the order of appointment. This is because the section itself contemplates that every trustee appointed under sub-S. (1) or under sub-S. (2) of S. 47, shall hold office for a term of three years. In other words, before a trustee can be said to commence holding of office he has got to be appointed as trustee. The order of appointment can take effect only when a trustee receives the order of appointment and does something to show that he has accepted the appointment. We can visualise the situation where an order of appointment is prepared and is received by the trustee not on the very same date, but some days after the date of the order. In such a case, the appointment itself can become effective only when the trustee receives the order, assuming that as soon as he receives the order, he accepts the appointment. In such a case, the appointment itself can become effective only when the trustee receives the order, assuming that as soon as he receives the order, he accepts the appointment. In such a situation, it would be unreasonable to hold that he had started the office under S. 47(3) of the Act even before he is appointed as a trustee. Without the order of appointment in his hand he cannot exercise the powers conferred on him under the Act. We therefore reject the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the tenure of the office of the trustee must be deemed to commence from the date of the order of appointment. 8. We shall now consider the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners that taking of an oath, professing Hindu religion is a must for the newly appointed trustees and they can be said to hold office only after they take oath in accordance with the rules. As already extracted, R. 2 of the Manner of Proof of Professing Hindu Religion Rules, states that every person appointed or deemed to be appointed under the Act shall sign a pledge in the form appended to the rules. If one reads R. 2 alone, it will not be possible to exclude the newly appointed trustees from the mischief of the rule, because, S. 47 refers to appointment of persons as trustees and the constitution of a Board of Trustees consisting of not less than three and not more than five persons appointed by him. Similarly, S. 47(3) states that every trustee appointed shall hold office for a period of three years. In Ss. 43(3) and (5) the word ‘appointment’ with reference to the trustee, is used. In the light of these provisions, it is not possible to confine the words ‘every person appointed or deemed to be appointed under the Act’ in R. 2 to the employees of the temple other than the trustees. Further, S. 26 states that a person shall be disqualified for being appointed as, and for being, a trustee of any religious institution, if he does not profess the Hindu religion. S. 53.(2) confers power on the appropriate authority to suspend, remove or dismiss any trustee of a religious institution if he ceases to profess Hindu religion. Hence, it is clear that in order to be appointed as a trustee, a person shall profess Hindu religion. S. 53.(2) confers power on the appropriate authority to suspend, remove or dismiss any trustee of a religious institution if he ceases to profess Hindu religion. Hence, it is clear that in order to be appointed as a trustee, a person shall profess Hindu religion. It is in this context R. 116.(2)(24) which provides for rules being made for the manner of proof of the fact that a person professes Hindu religion for the purposes of this Act, is to be understood. It is significant to note that S. 116(2)(23) specifically refers to officers and servants for appointment to religious institutions while S. 116(2)(24) refers to the persons in general. We have therefore, no hesitation in holding that every non-hereditary trustee has necessarily got to take a pledge as required by the Rules. The Explanation states that the pledge shall be taken before the appointees enter upon their duties. However, there is nothing in the Act or in the Rules, to indicate what would happen if the trustees, who profess Hindu religion, assumes office without taking the pledge as required by the Rules. Further, it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. on 2nd July, 1983, that in the case of trustees, it is not the practice of the department to provide for taking of pledge for the trustees and that such a procedure is adopted only in the case of employees and servants of the religious institution as required in R. 3. It is further stated in the affidavit that there is a provision in the application that only Hindus alone should apply for appointment as hereditary trustees, and unless there is a doubt in the mind of the authorities that the person does not profess Hindu religion there will be no necessity to call upon the non-hereditary trustee to take his pledge. In view of these circumstances we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the non-hereditary trustees appointed under the Act would hold office for three years from the date of their taking their pledge as required in the Rules. In view of these circumstances we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioners that the non-hereditary trustees appointed under the Act would hold office for three years from the date of their taking their pledge as required in the Rules. We may however point out that in view of our holding that the rule requiring the taking of pledge would apply to non-hereditary trustees as well, ( sic ) in future, it would be desirable for the authorities to insist upon a pledge being taken by such trustees, or at least get a declaration signed by them on the application Form itself in the Form prescribed under the Rule that they profess the Hindu religion. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision in K.S. Reddy v. Commissioner, Endowments Dept. Hyderabad 1. The learned Judges held that ‘before a trustee enters upon his office, the Commissioner or any other person authorised by him, shall administer to the trustee the oath of office and secrecy. Therefore, if a trustee does not take the oath he cannot enter upon his office. The oath cannot be taken by himself, but it has to be administered to him by an authority under the Act.’ This decision is not helpful for the present case, because S. 16 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endo wments Act, 1966, clearly provides that before a trustee enters upon his office, the Commissioner or any other person authorised by him in this behalf shall administer to the trustee the oath of office and secrecy according to the form prescribed for that purpose. There is no such section in the Tamil Nadu Act. The Rule also is not specific on the question. 10. The question then for consideration is what shall be the date from which the non-hereditary trustees appointed under the Act would hold office. In all such cases, there should be a procedure under which the new appointee who is appointed as a trustee of a religious institution acknowledges in writing that he his assumed charge of his office. In cases where persons appointed by H.R. and C.E. authorities themselves, are holding the office, it is expected that they should also acknowledge in writing that they had handed over charge and the newly appointed trustees should equally acknowledge in writing that they have taken charge of their office. In cases where persons appointed by H.R. and C.E. authorities themselves, are holding the office, it is expected that they should also acknowledge in writing that they had handed over charge and the newly appointed trustees should equally acknowledge in writing that they have taken charge of their office. There may however be cases where non-hereditary trustees are appointed and the hereditary trustees who are already holding the office may not be willing to hand over charge to the newly appointed trustees. In such situations, it is expected that the newly appointed trustees should acknowledge in writing to the authorities concerned that they have assumed charge of their office and thereafter taking appropriate proceedings as provided in the Act for the recovery of the possession of the properties and records of the concerned institution. It is not clear from the counter-affidavit whether such a procedure is being followed or not followed by the H.R. and C.E. Department. In all the cases before us it is not disputed that a fit person appointed by the department itself was holding the office by the time when the petitioners were appointed as non hereditary trustees. In such circumstances, there must be something in writing to show that the fit person who is in-charge of the affairs of the religious institution handed over charge of his office to the newly appointed trustee and that the newly appointed trustee took over charge from the fit person. The date of such handing over charge and taking over charge would be the date from which normally the newly appointed trustee would commence to hold office and he shall be eligible to hold office under S. 47 for a period of three years from the date of assumption of office. We make it clear that in future as and when new trustees are appointed the authorities should have it recorded in writing that the newly appointed trustees have taken over charge from the persons already holding the office and the latter had handed over the charge. In cases, where hereditary trustees in whose place or along with him the newly appointed trustees are appointed refuse to hand over charge, the newly appointed trustees should record that they have assumed office notwithstanding the refusal of the existing trustees to hand over charge and that they would be taking appropriate steps to recover possession of the properties of the institution. This is implicit in S. 47(3) itself where it provides that a trustee shall hold office for a term of three years. 11. In all the present petitions, our attention has not been drawn to the fact that the Board of Trustees assumed office on any particular date and the fit person handed over charge on any particular date. We have also not been furnished with any record proving that fact. Consequently, we are driven to the necessity of solving the question as to when exactly the petitioners assumed office. In all the cases before us, we are concerned only with the appointment of a Board of Trustees. We have already referred to S. 48.(1) which is to the effect that the Board of Trustees should elect one of its members as a Chairman within the prescribed period, and if no Chairman is elected within the prescribed period, it will be the duty of the Commissioner to nominate the Chairman. Rules have been framed for the function of Board of Trustees under G.O. No. 4524, dated 5th November, 1960. R. 18 enjoins that the Chairman shall be elected under sub-Ss. (1) and (2) of S. 48, within sixty days of the date of the order of appointment of the last trustee constituting the Board of Trustees or within thirty days from the date of order directing the election of a Chairman or within fifteen days before the date of expiry of the period of the outgoing Chairman. According to R. 19, such a Chairman shall hold office for a period of two years from the date of his election or nomination, unless he ceases to be a trustee in the meanwhile. R. 16 provides that the election of the Chairman shall be made at a special meeting and shall be by secret ballot. It further provides that when there is no Chairman in office for convening a special meeting the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the institution is situate or any officer specifically authorised by him in this behalf shall convene the special meeting and preside over them. In all these cases, it is admitted that there was no Chairman in office and a fit person was holding office. In all these cases, it is admitted that there was no Chairman in office and a fit person was holding office. As an illustrative case, we may state in W.A. 785 of 1982, the Inspector has convened a meeting on 16th December, 1981, for the election of the Chairman and the election of the Chairman took place only on that date. The Functioning of Board of Trustees Rules made further provision for the functioning of the Board of Trustees. It must necessarily follow that the Board of Trustees cannot start functioning under the Rules unless and until a Chairman is elected according to the Rules. We therefore hold that in all these cases, the trustees must be deemed to have assumed office on the date on which the Chairman of the Board of Trustees was elected. They will hold office for a period of three years from the date of election of the Chairman. 12. We are not impressed with the argument of the learned Government Pleader that having accepted the order of appointment which stated that they would hold office from the date of the order, the trustees should be estopped from contending that they would be entitled to hold office for a period of three years from any day other than the date of the order. As we have already pointed out, S. 47 states that the trustees shall hold office for a period of three years. We have also made it clear that before receipt of the order of appointment no trustee could be deemed to be holding the office. Unless and until they received the order of appointment itself, they will not be in a position to hold office. In the circumstances, to say that they must be considered to have started holding office from a date even anterior to the date of the receipt of the appointment order itself would be in violation of S. 47 itself. We therefore reject this contention. 13. We are equally not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless and until the newly appointed trustees are put in physical possession of the properties of the religious institution, it cannot be deemed to be holding the office. 14. We therefore reject this contention. 13. We are equally not impressed with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless and until the newly appointed trustees are put in physical possession of the properties of the religious institution, it cannot be deemed to be holding the office. 14. In the result, we hold that in all these, cases the Board of Trustees must be deemed to have started holding the office from the date of election of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. As already stated, in future, we direct that as and when the Board of Trustees are constituted after the election of the Chairman or when the sole trustee is appointed, the authorities should have it recorded that the Board of Trustees or the sole trustee, as the case may be, has assumed office and such a Board or a sole trustee will hold office from the date of such assumption of office. 15. In the result, W.A. 785 of 1982 and the other writ petitions are allowed, to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. 16. As regards W.A. 779 of 1982, this appeal is filed against the dismissal of W.P. 10086 of 1982. The case of the petitioners appellants is that they are entitled to hold the office of trustee from the date of their assumption of office. In this case, the appellants were appointed on 9th January, 1980. From the minutes book it is seen that the first petitioner-first appellant Roopalinga Chettiar was elected as Chairman of the Board of Trustees on 8th March, 1980. In the circumstances, the term of office of the appellants would have expired on 7th March, 1983, on the basis that the Board was constituted with the election of the Chairman on 8th March, 1980. In the circumstances, the appellants petitioners are not entitled to any relief. Hence the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.