Judgment :- K. GOVINDARAJAN, J. 1. The appellant/Executive Officer, Arulmigu Vana Badrakaliamman Temple, Thekkampatti, has filed the above Writ Appeal, aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge passed in W.P. No. 19988 of 1998, dated 31.8.1999. 2. The third respondent is the heriditary trustee of the said temple. With a view to fill up the permanent vacancy of Poosari of the said temple, made publication in the newspaper. ‘Dhina Thanthi’, Coimbatore Edition, dated 21.11.1997, calling for applications for six vacancies in the said temple including the said vacancy for the post of Poosari. The Writ Petitioner made an application for appointment of Poosari for the said temple. Interview was conducted on 13.5.1998. After considering the merits of al l the candidates who attended the interview, the trustee passed resolution on 19.5.1998 selecting the Writ Petitioner for that post. But the third respondent did not issue the appointment order on account of the objections raised by the second respondent, as the Writ Petitioner is not qualified to be appointed to the post of Poosari. It seems that the third respondent by his letter dated 21.10.1998 sought for permission from the second respondent to appoint the Writ Petitioner as Poosari. The second respondent was not inclined to approve the appointment. In the letter dated 17.11.1998, the second respondent denied such permission, on the basis of the circulars issued by him dated 22.5.1992 and 16.6.1993. So, the Writ Petitioner filed the Writ Petition in W.P. No. 19988 of 1998, challenging the legality of the said letter dated 17.11.1998 sent by the Second respondent-commissioner. The learned Judge after elaborately considering the issues raised before him held that the said letter dated 17.11.1998 cannot be sustained, and quashed the same, and also directed the third respondent to appoint the Writ Petitioner as an Archaka within one month from the date of the order. 3. We heard the arguments advanced by Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that qualifications have been prescribed by the second respondent-commissioner in the circulars dated 22.5.1992 and 16.6.1993 for filling up the vacancies in the said temple. The appointment of the first respondent/Writ Petitioner as a Poosari cannot be sustained, as he is disqualified to be appointed for such post, and he has filed cases against the said temple which are admittedly pending. The appointment of the first respondent/Writ Petitioner as a Poosari cannot be sustained, as he is disqualified to be appointed for such post, and he has filed cases against the said temple which are admittedly pending. The learned senior counsel, referring to Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 has submitted that the Commissioner is empowered to call for records and examine the same with respect to any proceedings of the trustee of a religious institution, to satisfy himself as to the correctness or legality of such proceedings, or an order passed therein. As such power is available to the Commissioner, the order passed, which is impugned in the Writ Petition, is within the jurisdiction of the second respondent-Commissioner and so it cannot be held as invalid. 5. Under Section 55 of the said Act, vacancies whether permanent or temporary among the office-holders or servants of a religious institution shall be filled up by the trustees in all cases. Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 55 says that “Office-holders or servants” shall include archakas and pujaris. Exercising this provision, the third respondent herein selected the first respondent herein as a Poosari by way of selection. But the third respondent could not appoint the first respondent as Poosar i in view of the impugned order of the Commissioner dated 17.11.1998. In the said proceedings, it is stated that any appointment should be made only after getting prior approval from the Commissioner as stated in the circulars dated 22.5.1992 and 16.6.1993. It is also specifically stated that such power to approve the appointment is available only to the Commissioner, and the trustee cannot appoint, by himself, any Poosari. To sustain this order, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that to vouch whether the trustees has appointed a person with any disqualification or not suffered from any disqualification, such prior approval is necessary and so the Commissioner is correct in saying that the trustee cannot make appointment order by himself without getting prior approval of the Commissioner, in the interest of the institution. We are not able to accept the said submission. 6. When power is given to the trustees to appoint office-holders and servants in religious institutions under Section 55 of the said Act, such power cannot be taken away by administrative orders. We are not able to accept the said submission. 6. When power is given to the trustees to appoint office-holders and servants in religious institutions under Section 55 of the said Act, such power cannot be taken away by administrative orders. Asking the trustees to get prior approval to appoint a servant as stated in the impugned order is contrary to the said specific provision. Further, any order passed under Section 55 of the said Act can be challenged by way of Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. If the intention of the statute is such that the trustee has to get prior approval before making appointment, in other words, if the appointment should be made only after getting prior approval of the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner should not have been given power to entertain appeals against the said orders. So a plain reading of Section 55 of the said Act clearly establishes that trustees have power to appoint such officer-holders, and, in the absence of any such restriction to get prior approval from the Commissioner to exercise the statutory function, insisting such approval by administrative order cannot be sustained. 7. Even if trustees appoint disqualified persons br the persons who should not have been appointed, the Commissioner can always exercise his powers under Section 21 of the said Act to set aside such illegal orders. When the statute prescribes such a procedure for appointment and rectification of the illegal orders if any, the Commissioner by way of administrative orders cannot insist the trustees to get prior approval before making appointment. So, the learned Judge is correct in holding that the impugned order dated 17.11.1998 cannot be sustained in law. The learned Judge has also relied on the order of J. Kanakaraj, J. as he then was, in W.P. No. 2967 to 2972 of 1996 dated 21.8.1996, in K.S. Rajashanmugavel, Sri Mariammal Temple, Samayapuram and others v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. 8. As stated above, as the Commissioner is given power, to set aside any illegal orders passed by the trustees, under Section 21 of the said Act, if the Commissioner feels that any order of the third respondent-trustee is contrary to law and against the interest of the religious institution, he can always exercise his power under Section 21 of the said Act. 9. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Judge. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No. 22373 of 1999 is also dismissed.