Judgment :- Challenge in this Writ Petition is the proceedings of the Second Respondent dated 112. 2001 and to direct the Respondents to confirm the Petitioner in the post of Office Attender, granting him all pecuniary benefits from the date of his original appointment dated 111. 1993. 2. Brief facts are as follows:- The Petitioner was appointed as Mahout in a permanent vacancy in 1969 in Kuzhithurai Devaswom. One Vijayakumar, who was working as Office Attender in Kuzhithurai Devaswom was transferred to Anaiadi Thottam by order of the Second Respondent dated 111. 1993. Pursuant to the order of the Second Respondent, the Petitioner was appointed as Office Attender in the proceedings dated 111. 1993. 3. Earlier, the Petitioner had given representation for regularisation of his service as Office Attender and for payment of salary as Office Attender. Since his representation was not considered, the Petitioner has filed W.P.No.17185 of 2000 and this Court has directed the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner. In consideration of his representation, the Impugned Order was passed declining to confirm the Petitioner in the post of Office Attender, on the ground that he is only a contingent employee. 4. Laying stress upon Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (for short "the Act"), learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that only the Trustees have power to appoint Office Holders or Servant of a religious institution and no prior approval from the Commissioner is necessary. It was further submitted that in view of Section 55 of the Act, the order appointing the Petitioner as Office Attender is valid. It was further submitted that any executive instructions cannot prevail upon the statutory provisions of Section 55 and suitable directions are to be issued to regularise the service of the Petitioner as Office Attender. .5. Contending that the Superintendent is not at all a Trustee, learned counsel for the Respondent Temple has submitted that for the temples Devaswom governed under the Act, the temple servant post are made only in regular course by calling for eligible candidates through employment exchange or by advertisement. It was further submitted that the arguments of the Petitioner that the Superintendent is on par with Trustee empowered to make appointment is unsustainable. 6. The Petitioner was appointed as Mahout in a contingent post drawing the scale of pay of Rs.600-30-900-35-1250. It was further submitted that the arguments of the Petitioner that the Superintendent is on par with Trustee empowered to make appointment is unsustainable. 6. The Petitioner was appointed as Mahout in a contingent post drawing the scale of pay of Rs.600-30-900-35-1250. After the death of the elephant, the Petitioner was working as a Temple Watcher in the same scale of pay in Arulmighu Mahadevar Temple, Kuzhithurai. As per the order of the Second Respondent, one Vijayakumar, who was working as Office Attender in Group Superintendent Office at Kuzhithurai was transferred to Anaiadi Estate to assist the Manager in the Administration of Anayadi Estate. In the said order Na.Ka.No.1117/93/A2, the Superintendent Kuzhithurai Group was asked to make arrangements regarding the work of office attender in the Devaswom Superintendent office by a contingent employee from Kuzhithurai Devaswom. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that without proper understanding of the said order, Superintendent of Kuzhithurai Devaswom by order dated 111. 1993 has appointed the Petitioner in the place of Office Attender. The Third Respondent has no right to appoint any person in the post of Office Attender, which is a temple servant post. Appointment or promotion to a Temple servant post can be done only by the Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Department. .8. After the transfer of Office Attender – Vijayakumar, the Petitioner was only asked to attend the works of Office Attender. Being a contingent employee, the Petitioner has no right to the post. There is distinction between a contingent employee and the Temple Servant who is a permanent employee. The Petitioners appointment as Mahout is a contingent post; whereas the post of Office Attender is a Temple Servant. Salary for the post of contingent watcher is Rs.600-30-900-35-1250. On the other hand, the basic salary for the post of Office Attender is Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200. Without permission from the Commissioner, promotion cannot be given to the contingent temple watcher. The Petitioner was only asked to work at Superintendent Office situated within the same compound. Hence, the Petitioner cannot claim the benefits as of Office Attender. Hence, no direction can be issued that the Petitioner should be regularised in the post of office attender. 9. Without permission from the Commissioner, promotion cannot be given to the contingent temple watcher. The Petitioner was only asked to work at Superintendent Office situated within the same compound. Hence, the Petitioner cannot claim the benefits as of Office Attender. Hence, no direction can be issued that the Petitioner should be regularised in the post of office attender. 9. The main contention of the Petitioner is that only the Trustees have the power to appoint Office Holders or Servants in respect of religious institution and hence, the order of Third Respondent appointing the Petitioner as Office Attender is valid. No doubt, it is true that under Section 55 of the Act, the Trustees have power to appoint Officer Holders or Servants of a religious institution in the absence of any restrictions to get prior approval from the Commissioner. The arguments advanced invoking Section 55 of the Act hardly merits acceptance. The Third Respondent is a Superintendent an employee of the H.R & C.E., cannot be said to be a Trustee within the meaning of Section 55 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has not made specific averments in the Writ Petition invoking Section 55 of the Act. The post of temple servant being a regular post within the purview of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, appointments could be made only by the appointing authority as per the Rules. The decision relied on reported in Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer, Arulmighu Vana Badrakaliamman Temple, Thekkampattai ..Vs.. T. Kumaresan ( 2000 (2) L.W. 250 ) relates to appointment of Poojari by a Trustee, which has no relevance to the case in hand. 10. The Third Respondent – Superintendent has no power to appoint or to make any appointment. Submitting that appointment made by a person who has no authority would be void, learned counsel for the Respondents placed reliance upon the decision reported in State of M.P. And Others ..Vs.. Yogesh Chandra Bubey and others (2006 (8) S.C.C. 67). In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held:- "...11. A person who had been appointed by a State upon following the Recruitment Rules, enjoys a status. A post must be created and/or sanctioned before filling it up. The question recently came up for consideration in M.P.Housing Board ..Vs.. Manoj Shrivastava ( 2006 (2) S.C.C. 702 ) wherein it was held ............ A person who had been appointed by a State upon following the Recruitment Rules, enjoys a status. A post must be created and/or sanctioned before filling it up. The question recently came up for consideration in M.P.Housing Board ..Vs.. Manoj Shrivastava ( 2006 (2) S.C.C. 702 ) wherein it was held ............ The appointment made by a person who has no authority therefor would be void. A fortiori an appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute or constitutional obligation shall also be void. If no appointment could be made in terms of the statute, such appointment being not within the purview of the provisions of the Act, would be void; he cannot be brought within the cadre of permanent employees. The definitions of "permanent employee" and "temporary employee" as contained in the Rules must, thus, be construed having regard to the object and purport sought to be achieved by the Act". 12. Therein the question which arose for consideration was: "As to whether the respondent therein was a permanent employee within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961?" It was observed:- "8. A person with a view to obtain the status of a "permanent employee" must be appointed in terms of the statutory rules. It is not the case of the respondent that he was appointed against a vacant post which was duly sanctioned by the statutory authority or his appointment was made upon following the statutory law operating in the field..." 11. Elaborately referring to Uma Devis case in 2006 (4) S.C.C. 1 and various other decisions, in the decision reported in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., ..Vs.. Workman, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2006 A.I.R. SCW 5994), speaking for the Bench, Markandey Katju, J. has held as under:- "33. In Paragraphs 46 to 48 of the Judgment, this Court also observed that temporary, contractual, casual or daily wage ad hoc employees appointed dehors the constitutional scheme to public employment have no legitimate expectation to be absorbed or, regularised for granted permanent continuation in service on the ground that they have continued for a long time in service. In Paragraphs 46 to 48 of the Judgment, this Court also observed that temporary, contractual, casual or daily wage ad hoc employees appointed dehors the constitutional scheme to public employment have no legitimate expectation to be absorbed or, regularised for granted permanent continuation in service on the ground that they have continued for a long time in service. It was observed by this Court that non-grant of permanent continuation in service of such employees does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution and such employees do not have any enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed, nor to be paid salary of regular employees. A regular process of recruitment or employment has to be resorted to when regular vacancies and posts are to be filled up. This Court further observed that public employment must comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of the Constitution. 34. No doubt, there can be occasions when the State or its instrumentalities employ persons on temporary or daily wage basis in a contingency as additional hands without following the required procedure, but this does not confer any right on such persons to continue in service or get regular pay. Unless the appointments are made by following the rules, such appointees do not have any right to claim permanent absorption in the establishment. 35. A perusal of the record of the present case shows that the respondents were appointed on purely casual and daily rate basis without following the relevant service rules. Thus, they had no right to the post at all vide State of U.P..Vs.. Kaushal Kishore ( 1991 (1) S.C.C. 691 )...." 12. In the present case, admittedly, the Petitioner was appointed as Mahout in contingent employment. Since the elephant died and only because the Petitioner had no other work, he was asked to attend the works of Office Attender as an alternative arrangement in the Administrative exigency. This does not confer any right on the Petitioner to continue as Office Attender or to claim regular pay. 13. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.