Judgment : The petitioner has filed this petition seeking writ of mandamus forbearing the third respondent from interfering with the right of performing poojas by the petitioner or any male member of his family in performing poojas in Sri Neelivaneswarar Thirukkoil, Thiru- ppainjeeli, Trichy District, except without following the due process of law. 2. Case of the petitioner is that himself and his ancestors as well as his son are performing poojas to the third respondent-Temple without any hindrance from any quarters. According to the petitioner, he is hereditary poojari and he has been performing the poojas after the death of his father till 12.9.2001. Further case of the petitioner is that as per the scheme framed on 1.1.1930, he is entitled to perform poojas from 16th to 30th of every month. He has deputed his son to perform the poojas. After the first week of April, 2006, he was not allowed to perform the poojas. Further case of the petitioner is that they are the hereditary Gurukkals performing pooja as per the said scheme and hence, seeks for writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with his right of performing poojas. 3. Alleging that the petitioner and his father have not performed the pooja services in the Temple for many years, the third respondent has filed the elaborate counter affidavit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the scheme framed on 1.1.1930, there cannot be any objection for performing poojas by the petitioner. It is further submitted that when the Service Inam is still valid, there is no reason for preventing the petitioner from performing the poojas. 5. Drawing the attention of the Court to the averments in the counter affidavit, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the petitioners father has joined Boominatha- samy Temple and the petitioner was also appointed as Archakar in the said Boominatha- samy Temple, Manachanallur and receiving salaries. It is further submitted that as per Section 55(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short “the Act”), no person shall be entitled to appointment to any vacancy, merely on the ground that he is next in the line of succession to the last holder of the office. It is further submitted that as per Section 55(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (for short “the Act”), no person shall be entitled to appointment to any vacancy, merely on the ground that he is next in the line of succession to the last holder of the office. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that when the petitioner had abandoned the service in the third respondent-Temple and is serving another Temple, cannot claim any right to perform poojas in the third respondent-Temple. 6. The Suit Temple is stated to be an ancient Temple and nearly 4321 acres of land were given for the maintenance of the Temple and nearly 4000 acres were taken by the Government under Estate Abolition Act (26 of 1948), and in lieu of that action, allowances are being received by the Temple and with the Revenue from the remaining lands, the Temple administration was managed. It is further alleged that in the earlier days, the Temple was driven to penury due to the meagre income from the lands. 7. It is stated that 8.92 acres of land in S. No. 751 in Patta No. 959 were granted for “Gurukkal Service” to the third respondent- Temple at Thiruppangili. Since it is Service Inam, the individual must render service to the Temple as long as he enjoys the land and this land is burdened with service. It is stated that due to financial crunch, the petitioners father T.S. Ramalinga Gurukkal had abandoned the pooja service in the suit Temple and got appointment in Boominathasamy Temple, Manachanallur. Records of Boominathasamy Temple had been produced, showing that the said T.S. Ramalinga Gurukkal was performing poojas as Gurukkal in the said Boomi- nathasamy Temple, Manachanallur which is about 7 kms. from the suit Temple. 8. It is also seen from the records that the petitioner was also appointed as Archaka in the said Boominathasamy Temple, Mana- chanallur. Pay Bill of the establishment of Manachanallur Temple had been produced, showing that the petitioner Ramani Gurukkal had received his salary from Boominathasamy Temple for functioning as Archaka for six months’ from 1.11.2000 to April, 2001. When the petitioner and his father have abandoned the services of the third respondent-Temple, the petitioner is not justified in alleging, “that he is performing the poojas in the third respondent-Temple”. When the petitioner and his father have abandoned the services of the third respondent-Temple, the petitioner is not justified in alleging, “that he is performing the poojas in the third respondent-Temple”. When the petitioner has abandoned the services of the third respondent- Temple and has been appointed as Archaka in Boominathasamy Temple, the petitioner cannot claim any right of performing poojas in the third respondent-Temple. 9. Section 55 of the Act deals with Appointment of office-holders and servants in religious institutions. As per the explanation, the expression office-holders or servants shall include Archakas and Poojaries. As per Section 55(2) of the Act, no person shall be entitled to appointment to any vacancy referred to in sub-section (1) merely on the ground that he is in next in the line of succession to the last holder of the office. When the petitioners father himself has abandoned the services of the third respondent-Temple, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable. 10. It is also stated that one T.S. Sundara Gurukkal had filed a suit in O.S. No. 202 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif Court, Lalgudi and obtained interim injunction in I.A. No. 593 of 2005 against the appointment of any other person in the office of the Poojari- ship. At present, T.S. Sundara Gurukkal and Neelakanda Gurukkal alone are working as Archakars in rotation in every year in the suit Temple and they are enjoying the Archanai Share. 11. The petitioner has approached this Court suppressing the material fact of his abandoning the service of the third respondent-Temple and functioning as Archaka in Boominathasamy Temple. The petitioner is not entitled to seek the aid of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. (MD) No. 3762 of 2006 is also dismissed.