Judgment :- K.A. Swami, CJ. 1. Respondent is represented through counsel. As the matter lies in a narrow compass, by consent of parties, the Writ appeal is heard and disposed of. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 18. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4254 of 1985. In the writ petition, the petitioner - respondent sought for quashing G.O.Ms.No.1348 dated 112. 1984. It may be pointed out here that on an earlier occasion, the petitioner was found to be unfit to hold the office of the hereditary trustee of the temple known as Agastheeswarar and Prasanna Venkatesa Perumal temple and in his place, his wife was appointed as the hereditary trustee. After sometime he made an application for re-appointment. His wife also supported the application on the ground that she was not able to discharge the functions of the here ditary trustee. The Government considered the request and rejected it. The learned single Judge also has not found that the impugned order of the State Government is liable to be interfered with. However, the learned single Judge has taken a view that as the wife is not in a position to discharge the functions of the hereditary trustee, she being a de-jury trustee, her husband, namely the petitioner, can be permitted to assist and represent her as a trustee. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition, we are of the view that the State Government is justified in refusing the re-appoint the petitioner as the hereditary trustee. He appears to be not interested in the religious institution. We find it very difficult to agree with the view of the learned single Judge that the wife of the petitioner may continue as de- jure hereditary trustee and the petitioner can act as de facto trustee. The person who is found to be unfit to hold the office of the hereditary trustee, has been permitted to function as the hereditary trustee under the guise of de facto trustee. What he is not entitled to get directly has been given the same indirectly. It is nothing but traversity of justice and it does not accord with any notion of justice much less with responsibilities of the office of a hereditary trustee. What he is not entitled to get directly has been given the same indirectly. It is nothing but traversity of justice and it does not accord with any notion of justice much less with responsibilities of the office of a hereditary trustee. It also does accord with the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of the learned single Judge in so far as it permits the petitioner to function as de facto trustee, is liable to be set aside. 4 . Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the order of the learned single judge dated 11-8-1994 passed in W.P.No.4254 of 1985 in so far as it permits the petitioner to function as de facto trustee of the temple in question is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.