Judgment :- 1. In these three writ petitions, though the petitioners have sought for varied prayers, the issue involved pertains to the claim of the petitioners to be permanently absorbed as Assistant Pujaries, in Arulmigu Vanapathra Kaliamman Thirukovil, Thekkampaty, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, the third respondent, and their services to be regularised from the date of sanction of the posts. 2. The petitioners claim that they were inducted as Assistant Pujaries in the said Temple and they have sought for an order to regularise their services and such is the prayer in W.P.No.1463 of 2014. In W.P.No.35356 of 2012, the petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the notification issued by the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer of the Temple dated 27.11.2012 in so far as the post of Parisaragar and to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners in the post of Assistant Poojari/Parisaragar. In W.P.No.14236 of 2013, the petitioners seek for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the notification issued by the Hereditary Trustee of the Temple as well as the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer of the Temple dated 22.4.2013, calling for applications for filling up of the post of one Ticket Seller, one post of Writer and three posts of Assistant Pujari. 3. In all the three writ petitions, the petitioners are three in numbers namely A.Anandakumar, S.Sivakumar and K.Chandran. The case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as Assistant Pujaries during 1996 and they were paid salary from the offerings made by the worshippers (Thattu kanikkai) and they sought for permanent absorption in the post of Assistant Pujari and fixation of their scale of pay. 4. It is submitted that the Executive Officer of the temple vide proceedings dated 01.02.1996, granted permission to the Pujari to induct three persons as Assistant Pujaries and based on such permission, they continued to perform their functions as Assistant Pujaris. During 2002, the Assistant Commissioner forwarded a proposal to the Commissioner, HR & CE, recommending the names of the petitioners for being appointed them as Assistant Pujaries on permanent basis. This was followed by another proposal by the Joint Commissioner on 18.04.2002, almost on the same line. 5. During 2002, the Assistant Commissioner forwarded a proposal to the Commissioner, HR & CE, recommending the names of the petitioners for being appointed them as Assistant Pujaries on permanent basis. This was followed by another proposal by the Joint Commissioner on 18.04.2002, almost on the same line. 5. It is submitted that the Commissioner, HR & CE Department by proceedings dated 24.08.2005, granted permission to the Assistant Commission to engage the service of three Assistant Pujaries, one Ticket Seller, one Writer on daily wage of Rs.50/-. It is further submitted that a resolution was passed by the Hereditary Trustee on 11.12.2007, for the purpose of filling up of the vacancies. The petitioners further submitted that since their cases were not considered for regular absorption, though they have been functioning since 1996, they approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.625 of 2012, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to bring them into regular establishment by appointing them on permanent basis in the post of Assistant Pujari, based on the proposal forwarded by the Joint Commissioner, HR &CE Department, Coimbatore dated 18.04.2012. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by an order dated 10.08.2012, directing the Hereditary Trustee of the Temple to send proposal relating to the regularisation of the services of the petitioners in the light of the proposal dated 18.4.2002, within a specified time, with a further direction to the Commissioner, HR & CE Department to consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. 6. The Hereditary Trustee filed a Writ Appeal against the said order in W.A.No.107 of 2013, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench by Judgment dated 18.01.2013, holding that since the proposal is yet to be considered, it is premature to decide the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner has passed an order dated 27.3.2013, by which the Commissioner has held that the vacancies have to be filled up by calling for applications giving wide publicity by way of advertisement in the Newspapers and the petitioners were also permitted to apply for the post and if found eligible will be considered. 7. It has to be pointed out at this juncture that the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 27.3.2013. 7. It has to be pointed out at this juncture that the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 27.3.2013. However, they have questioned the notification issued by the Hereditary Trustee and the Executive Officer, dated 22.04.2013, calling for Applications from eligible candidates for the said posts. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners after elaborately referring to the factual matrix submitted that the impugned notification calling for applications for filling up the post is in violation of the order and direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.625 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. Further, it is submitted that the action of the respondents is clearly contrary to the earlier recommendations dated 10.01.2002 and 18.04.2002, wherein there was a specific recommendation made to the Commissioner, HR & CE, to create three posts of Assistant Pujaris for the purpose of accommodating the petitioners as their services were permitted to be utilised from 1996 pursuant to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 01.02.1996. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned notification calling for applications to fill up the vacancies from the open market is clearly against the earlier orders/ recommendations. 9. It is submitted that in terms of the order dated 27.3.2013, directing to fill up all the five posts, including three posts of Assistant Pujaris and on receipt of the petitioners applications, they should have been accommodated in the post and considered for regularisation and therefore the notification issued by the Hereditary Trustee and the Executive Officer is against the order passed by the Commissioner. 10. The learned counsel laying emphasis on the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner dated 01.02.1996, submitted that the petitioners were engaged in the services with due permission and therefore, they ought to have been considered for regularisation in the light of the proposals submitted by the Assistant Commissioner and Joint Commissioner coupled with the direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition. 11. It is submitted that though two writ petitions were pending which were filed challenging the notifications calling for applications from the open market and an order of interim stay was granted, services of the petitioners were sought to be disturbed which necessitated the petitioners to file the third writ petition in W.P.No.1463 of 2014. 12. 11. It is submitted that though two writ petitions were pending which were filed challenging the notifications calling for applications from the open market and an order of interim stay was granted, services of the petitioners were sought to be disturbed which necessitated the petitioners to file the third writ petition in W.P.No.1463 of 2014. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the Hereditary Trustee of the Temple submitted that the contentions of the petitioners that the third respondent vide proceedings dated 01.02.1996, appointed the petitioners to the post of Assistant Pujari and there was no reference regarding payment of salary, is a misleading statement. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not properly understood the directions issued by the Commissioner in his order dated 27.3.2013, where there was no direction for regularisation of the alleged services of the petitioners and the order passed in the earlier writ petition has been complied with in its letter and spirit. It is further submitted that the minimum educational qualification to the post of Assistant Pujari is 8th standard as per G.O.Ms.No.255, Tamil Development, Religious Endowment and Information Department dated 28.06.2010. It is submitted that in the event the petitioners applied for the said post, their applications will be considered subject to the eligibility along with the applications received from other candidates from the open market. Further, it is submitted that appointment to any post of in Temple service cannot be made contrary to section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. Further, it is submitted that the question of regularisation does not arise and cannot be made since there was no post of Assistant Pujari and there was no order of appointment issued to the petitioners 1 to 3 or any one else. Further, it is submitted that the question of regularisation does not arise inasmuch as the petitioners were not appointed either temporarily or in any other manner known to law and under the said Rules by the person competent to appoint a Temple employee under the said Act. Similarly, with regard to the post of Parisaragar, the Rule prescribes minimum general educational qualification and the same is that of the qualification required for the post of Record Clerk in the Government service, apart from other additional knowledge, with reference to the customs prevailing in the Temple. Similarly, with regard to the post of Parisaragar, the Rule prescribes minimum general educational qualification and the same is that of the qualification required for the post of Record Clerk in the Government service, apart from other additional knowledge, with reference to the customs prevailing in the Temple. If it is by way of promotion, it could be done only from the feeder post of Assistant Cook. Further, it is submitted that even in respect of Assistant Archagar, by direct recruitment the candidate must have studied upto 8th standard and must possess one year Augama Training Certificate conducted by a religious institution or the Department, should be well versed to recite Manthrams, vedhas, Thirumurais at the time of daily poojas, festivals and Kumbabhishegam and should have adequate knowledge in the performance of Abishegam in the Temple, etc. With the above submissions, the learned counsel seeks to sustain the impugned notifications and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 13. The Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer of the Temple submitted that the administration of the Temple is vested in the hereditary trustee along with the Executive Officer appointed under section 45(1) of the TNHR & CE Act and the Temple is under the supervision of the respondent Department. It is submitted that as per the proceedings of the Commissioner, HR & CE Department dated 15.12.2010, only one post of Pujari has been approved, in which one T.Kalimuthu was working and the petitioners are said to be voluntarily assisting the said pujari in performance of poojas and recitals, for which they appear to have been given some remuneration by the Pujari. It is further submitted that though the offerings by the worshippers is voluntary, the pujari compelled the worshippers to contribute as 'Thattu kanikkai' for their normal worship. Therefore, a separate Hundial was installed for that purpose in 2003. The persons who were assisting the pujari submitted representation to regularise their services and appoint them as Assistant Pujaries. The said representation with proposal/report dated 10.01.2002, was forwarded through the second respondent to the Government for sanction of the posts, three posts of Assistant Pujaries, apart from two other posts were created and permitted to be engaged on daily wages Rs.50/- per day. The said representation with proposal/report dated 10.01.2002, was forwarded through the second respondent to the Government for sanction of the posts, three posts of Assistant Pujaries, apart from two other posts were created and permitted to be engaged on daily wages Rs.50/- per day. Those three posts which were sanctioned by the Government in Government Letter No.197 dated 16.8.2005, were directed to be filled up by calling for applications in accordance with the procedure laid down in the circular issued by the Commissioner. Pursuant to which the notification dated 17.10.2007, was issued and ten applications were received which were placed for consideration of the Hereditary Trustee and a resolution was passed on 27.11.2007, resolving to call for four candidates for interview. The applications of the other candidates were rejected. The petitioners filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.625 of 2012 which was ultimately disposed of and the Hon'ble Division Bench also dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by the Hereditary Trustee. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no vested right for the petitioners to seek for absorption in the post of Assistant Pujari which was not in existence at the relevant point of time. Further, it is submitted that the Department or the Hereditary Trustee have not appointed the petitioners as Assistant Pujari, and therefore, the prayer sought for in the writ petitions are not justified. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the Assistant Commissioner who is the respondent in W.P.No.14236 of 2013, set out similar contentions in his counter affidavit while reiterating the facts and submitted that on account of the interim order granted, the recruitment process itself has come to a stand still. 15. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Joint Commissioner (HR & CE), has reiterated the factual position and submitted that the factual contentions raised by the Assistant Commissioner is being adopted and to the said effect a counter affidavit was filed by the Joint Commissioner. 16. 15. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Joint Commissioner (HR & CE), has reiterated the factual position and submitted that the factual contentions raised by the Assistant Commissioner is being adopted and to the said effect a counter affidavit was filed by the Joint Commissioner. 16. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that the respondents have failed to consider the petitioners case for regular appointment though they rendered 22 years of service and inspite of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition to take note of the proposal dated 18.4.2002, issued by the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE Department, pursuant to which posts were created are now sought to be filled by calling for applications from the open market, which is illegal. 17. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 18. The petitioners in these writ petitions seek for regularisation of their services as Assistant Pujaries in Vanabadrakali Amman Temple. Their claim for regularisation is primarily based on three contentions. Firstly, the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, vide proceedings dated 01.02.1996, granted permission for engaging their services as Assistant Pujaris. 19. Secondly, the proposal submitted by the third respondent to the second respondent dated 10.01.2002 and the proposal forwarded by the second respondent to the first respondent dated 18.4.2002, recommended for sanction of three posts of Assistant Pujaries intended to accommodate the petitioners, absorb them into regular service and to provide them scale of pay. When these proposals were considered and posts were sanctioned, the petitioners alone should have been accommodated in the said posts without calling for applications from the open market to fill up those posts. 20. Thirdly, the respondents failed to adhere to the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 10.08.2012 in W.P.No.625 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.107 of 2013 dated 18.01.2013. Discussion: Contention No.1: (a) The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Mettupalayam Taluk, issued an Office Order on 01.02.1996. It is not a proceeding or circular, but an Office Order presumably for the purpose of regulating the administration within the prescients of the Temple. Discussion: Contention No.1: (a) The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Mettupalayam Taluk, issued an Office Order on 01.02.1996. It is not a proceeding or circular, but an Office Order presumably for the purpose of regulating the administration within the prescients of the Temple. The said order states that for the purpose of helping the Pujari (additional charge), he is entitled to engage the services of the three persons namely S.Sivakumar as Assistant Pujari, A.Anandakumar as Assistant Pujari and K.Kalimuthu as Assistant. The Office Order further states that Pujari is solely responsible for engaging the services of the three persons and they are required to sign a register maintained by “Maniam” of the Temple before they enter the Temple and they have to act as per the directions issued by the Pujari and the rules and regulations of the Temple and if they cause any disturbance or interference in the affairs of the Temple, the Temple Authorities have full right to expel them out of the temple. (b) Firstly, it has to be pointed out that the name of the third petitioner namely K.Chandran does not find place in the Office Order dated 01.02.1996. Therefore, so far as the third petitioner K.Chandran is concerned, no document is produced to establish that under what circumstances he was permitted to enter the Temple, much less to perform any religious activities. Therefore, on that ground the third petitioner K.Chandran is liable to be non-suited. (c) Be that as it may, a proposal was sent by the Assistant Commissioner on 10.01.2002, through the Joint Commissioner, who in turn forwarded a proposal dated 18.04.2002. In the said proposal the names of all the three petitioners find place. The financial implication which would be incurred by the Temple, if the proposal was accepted was also indicated. The Commissioner passed an order on 24.08.2005, permitting to engage the services of the three Assistant Pujaris on daily wages in furtherance to the Government letter No.197 dated 16.08.2005. By the said order of the Commissioner based on Government Order, the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer was permitted to appoint three Assistant Pujaries, one ticket seller and one Writer on daily wage of Rs.50/-. The proceedings of the Commissioner dated 24.08.2005 clearly states that the said post have to be filled up by scrupulously following the Circular issued by the Commissioner by issuing due publication calling for applications. The proceedings of the Commissioner dated 24.08.2005 clearly states that the said post have to be filled up by scrupulously following the Circular issued by the Commissioner by issuing due publication calling for applications. (d) Admittedly, the petitioners did not challenge the order dated 24.08.2005, by which the Commissioner granted permission to the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer to induct three Assistant Pujaries, one Ticket Seller and one Writer on daily wage of Rs.50/-. The post of Assistant Pujari was not sanctioned with retrospective effect and was only prospective that too on daily wages to be filled up after following the due process of recruitment. Thus, the reliance placed by the proposals dated 10.01.2002 and 18.04.2002 as if they have directed to accommodate the petitioners in the said post with retrospective effect is a contention which deserves to be outrightly rejected. (e) Pursuant to the direction issued by the Commissioner, HR & CE Department dated 24.08.2005, the Hereditary Trustee called for applications and it is seen that there were totally ten applications received for the post of Assistant Pujari and the Hereditary Trustee by resolution dated 27.11.2007, considered the applications of only four persons as eligible to be called for oral interview. Out of the four persons, S.Sivakumar, second petitioner was called for interview, so far as third petitioner K.Chandran is concerned, it was stated that as he has crossed the prescribed age limit of 45 years and has not obtained minimum educational qualification, and accordingly rejected his application and so far as the first petitioner A.Anandakumar is concerned, it is seen that he has has to remit a sum of Rs.71,817.40 to the Temple, which was noticed at the time of audit and when he was called upon to remit the said amount, it appears that he has threatened the Hereditary Trustee that unless he is permanently appointed as Pujari, he will not remit the amount. Therefore, the third respondent in its resolution dated 27.11.2007 recorded that the conduct of the first petitioner is not conducive for the Temple and therefore rejected his Application. Thus the petitioners claim for regularisation stands rejected. Contention No.2: (a) The petitioners claim vested right to be appointed in the three posts which have been sanctioned by placing heavy reliance on the recommendations/proposals of the third respondent dated 10.01.2002 and the second respondent dated 18.4.2002. Thus the petitioners claim for regularisation stands rejected. Contention No.2: (a) The petitioners claim vested right to be appointed in the three posts which have been sanctioned by placing heavy reliance on the recommendations/proposals of the third respondent dated 10.01.2002 and the second respondent dated 18.4.2002. (b) Firstly, it has to be pointed out that those two proceedings are only a proposal and the ultimate authority to sanction the post is the Government. The proposals were forwarded to the first respondent, who in turn has forwarded the same to the Government. The Government considered the matter and by Government letter No.197 dated 16.8.2005, did not sanction the posts as requested, but permitted the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer to engage the services of the three Assistant Pujaries, one Ticket Seller and one Writer on daily wage of Rs.50/-. While communicating the decision of the Government, the Commissioner made it clear that the recruitment/engagement of persons in those posts on daily wages should be after following the due procedure, by calling for applications. Thus, the proposals dated 10.01.2002 and 18.4.2002, did not fructify to be a positive order to accommodate the petitioners in the post, but, what was sanctioned was only posts on daily wages and candidates to be recruited by calling for applications giving wide publicity. Therefore, the second contention raised by the petitioners is devoid of merits. Contention No.3. (a) The petitioner filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.625 of 2012 praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to bring the petitioners into regular establishment by appointing them on permanent basis in the post of Assistant Pujaris in the existing vacancies based on the proposal of the second respondent dated 18.4.2002. (b) It is not in dispute that as on the date when the writ petition was filed, the proposal of the second respondent dated 18.4.2002 was considered and the Commissioner, HR & CE Department passed orders forwarding the same to the Government and the Government in turn by Government Letter No.197 dated 16.8.2005, passed orders sanctioning the posts on daily wages basis. That was implemented by the Commissioner vide proceedings dated 24.08.2005, granting permission to the Assistant Commissioner/ Executive Officer of the Temple to communicate the service of persons in the said post on daily wage of Rs.50/-, by calling for applications giving wide publicity. That was implemented by the Commissioner vide proceedings dated 24.08.2005, granting permission to the Assistant Commissioner/ Executive Officer of the Temple to communicate the service of persons in the said post on daily wage of Rs.50/-, by calling for applications giving wide publicity. Thus, on the date when the petitioners approached this Court by way of an earlier writ petition, the proposal dated 18.4.2002 was not pending. The petitioners have not challenged the order passed by the Government in Government Letter No.197 dated 16.8.2005 or the consequential proceedings of the Commissioner dated 24.8.2005. (c) Be that as it may, this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition, did not issue a positive direction, but directed the Hereditary Trustee to send proposal submitted by the second respondent dated 18.4.2002. The fourth respondent/Hereditary Trustee did not appear in the writ petition. That apart, it is clear that subsequent developments after the proposal dated 18.4.2002 was not placed before the Court. Therefore, the direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition having been confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, does not in any manner advance the case of the petitioners, more so, when the first respondent complied with the direction and passed the impugned order. In fact, the Hereditary Trustee implemented the directions issued by the Commissioner vide order dated 24.8.2005 and passed the resolution calling for applications to fill up the posts on daily wages. Applications were received and it was found that the application of S.Sivakumar (2nd petitioner) alone was eligible to be considered, the petitioner K.Chandran was found to be ineligible on account of over age (crossed 45 years of age) and the petitioner A.Anandakumar was found to be unsuitable on account of his conduct and having arrears of huge sums of money to the Temple. (d) The interview was fixed on 12.12.2007 at 11.00 a.m. Thus, the proposal dated 18.4.2002 was no longer pending and after the Government passed the order dated 16.8.2005. Thus, the prayer sought for by the writ petitioners in the earlier writ petition itself was not maintainable, in the light of the subsequent developments which took place between 2002 - 2005 and those facts appear to have not been placed before this Court the writ petition was filed in the year 2012. Hence, Contention No.3 is tested against the petitioners. 21. Hence, Contention No.3 is tested against the petitioners. 21. In the light of the above discussions and for the reasons assigned, it is held that the petitioners have not made out any case for interference. 22. In the result, the Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed and the interim orders granted stand vacated. However, it is open to the petitioners to apply for the posts, if the same is advertised and such applications shall be considered on merits and in accordance with law. No costs.