Judgment :- 1. Aggrieved by Ext. P3 office order dated 8-9-1983 passed by the 1st respondent-Travancore Devaswom Board appointing the 2nd respondent to be Devaswom Commissioner, the petitioner who is stated to be the seniormost Deputy Commissioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P3 order of the Travancore Devaswom Board dated 8-9-1983 promoting the 2nd respondent overlooking the seniority of the petitioner"; and "Issue a writ of mandamus to the 1st respondent Board to promote the petitioner as Devaswom Commissioner with effect from 26-11-1982 which is the date on which the post of Senior Thiruvabharanam Special Officer was created in the grade of Devaswom Commissioner." 2. It is an admitted case that the petitioner is the seniormost Deputy Commissioner. The only question that falls for decision is whether because of the seniority the petitioner is entitled to get himself appointed as the Devaswom Commissioner quashing Ext P3, whereunder the 2nd respondent has been appointed to that post. 3. We have heard Sri. K. S. Rajamony, the counsel for the petitioner, at considerable length. All the same he was not in a position to show us the provision of law under which the petitioner is entitled, as a matter of right, to claim the post of Devaswom Commissioner either on the basis of seniority or on any other ground. 4. The 1st respondent-Board in its counter-affidavit has taken the stand that all along the office of the Devaswom Commissioner was one filled up by the Maharaja, and later by the Travancore Devasom Board in his or its discretion, in being an office of confidence. Reliance was placed on the rules framed under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (Act XV/1950). Reliance was placed on the rules framed under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (Act XV/1950). The rule referred to is the rules made by the Board in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (5) of S.29 of the said Act; and the rule begins with these words: "1(0 These rules shall apply to all appointments borne on the permanent administrative establishments under the control of the Devaswom Board, the holders of which are eligible for Provident Fund or similar arrangements in lieu of pension made by the Board, but shall not apply to." The rules in terms would apply only to the appointments for the permanent administrative establishments under the control of the Board; and unless and until it has been shown by the petitioner that the Devaswom Commissioner's post is an appointment borne on the permanent administrative establishment under the control of the Board, he cannot succeed on the basis of the very rule on which he relies for support. 5. Reliance was placed by the counsel for the Ist respondent on the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Balakrishnan Nair G. v. The Travancore Devaswom Board (ILR.1972(1) Kerala 25) That was a case where the facts were almost identical; the Board appointed a person who was junior to the petitioner therein as Devaswom Commissioner. The position in law, as held by Eradi, J., as he then was, is: "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 position is clear from the wordings of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The counsel for the petitioner went on to contend that it could be seen that by practice or convention from 1952 onwards, it was only the seniormost Deputy Commissioner that used to be appointed Commissioner, and that for this departure by which the 2nd respondent, who is junior to the petitioner has been appointed Commissioner) there should have been sufficient justification. If the Board's power to make the appointment without reference to the seniority of the persons borne on the permanent administrative establishments could not be assailed, we do not think that the Board is bound to offer any explanation or reason why a person has been appointed the Commissioner; or why another person was not appointed to that post. 6. The position, we believe, is as stated in Para.5 to 8 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-Board. There is really no room for heart burning so far as the petitioner is concerned, as it is found stated in the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent that in Ext. P2 proceedings of the Board a new post of Senior Thiruvabharanam Special Officer had been created; and that was equivalent in salary and other benefits to those of the Commissioner. The counsel for the Board fairly submitted that the Board was prepared to appoint the petitioner to the post of Senior Thiruvabharanam Special Officer; and that the only obstacle in the way was the stay order in CMP. No. 16703/83 in OP. No. 5589/1983. It is our hope that the counsel for the Board would at the earliest opportunity move for the necessary clarification for enabling the Board to appoint the petitioner to the post of Senior Thiruvabharanam Special Officer. With this observation the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.