JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 as well as Sri.Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon appearing for the 4th respondent. 2. The petitioner who claims to be working as Day Watchman in the Mulayankavu Bhagavathi Temple, Palakkad District, is before this Court challenging Exts.P2 order issued by the Executive Officer of the Temple requiring the petitioner not to work in the temple. It is submitted that the petitioner had been initially appointed as Clerk in the temple by the Hereditary Trustee who was managing the affairs of the temple. It is stated that the temple was subsequently taken over by the erstwhile HR & CE Department of the Government of Kerala. It is stated that while so, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner by the Executive Officer. He was placed under suspension on 7.7.2012. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted and on the basis of the report filed by the Enquiry Officer, the then Executive Officer had passed Ext.P1 order. By Ext.P1, the finding of guilt entered by the Enquiry Officer was confirmed. However, as a measure of compassion, an order was passed reverting the petitioner from the post of Vazhipad Clerk to the post of Day Watchman in the scale of pay 4400-110-5930. The said order was subject to ratification by the Board. 3. It is stated that at the relevant time in the year 2012, there was no Trustee Board in place and the Executive Officer had passed the order assuming the role of appointing authority and disciplinary authority as well. The petitioner, thereafter had continued as Day Watchman. It is stated that the present incumbent in the post of Executive Officer had assumed charge on 09.04.2019. On 20.05.2019, Ext.P2 proceedings were issued stating that there was a letter of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board dated 4.11.2015 and that as such, the petitioner could not be permitted to carry out the duties as an employee of the Devaswom. It is stated that on 22.05.2019 steps were taken by the Executive Officer to assign the duty carried out by the petitioner to a temporary Store Watchman engaged in the temple. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, notice had been issued to respondents 3 and 4 by special messenger. It is stated that on 22.05.2019 steps were taken by the Executive Officer to assign the duty carried out by the petitioner to a temporary Store Watchman engaged in the temple. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission, notice had been issued to respondents 3 and 4 by special messenger. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board was required to produce a copy of the order passed by the Commissioner on 4.11.2015 and to submit whether the copy of the same was served on the petitioner. The case was considered again on 06.06.2019. Respondents 3 and 4 were represented by counsel. The learned counsel appearing for the rd respondent submitted that the petitioner is continuing as Watchman in the temple. Status quo was therefore directed to be maintained. 5. A counter affidavit has been now placed on record by the 4th respondent. It is stated that on verification of the official records, the 4th respondent came to know that the appointment of the petitioner as Day Watchman did not have the approval of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, which is mandatory. It is stated that after Ext.P1 order had been rendered by the Executive officer, the 2nd respondent Commissioner had refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner as Day Watchman and this was communicated to the then Executive Officer. Ext.R4(a) is produced and stated to be the order passed by the Commissioner on 04.11.2015. It is further stated that the entire records relating to the termination and reinstatement of the petitioner were unavailable in the temple and that the erstwhile Executive Officer as well as the Trustee Board are taking steps to support the petitioner and willful misrepresentations are made before this Court to the effect that the petitioner had been continuing on 06.06.2019. It is stated that it was only on 25.05.2019, that the Trustee Board met and took a decision to reinstate the petitioner in service and that as such, the petitioner could not have been in service earlier than the said date. It is stated that the relevant pages of the muster roll maintained in the temple for the months of May 2019 and June 2019, which is produced as Exts.R4(c) would show that the petitioner was not in service since 09.05.2019. 6. The 3rd respondent has also placed a counter affidavit on record. It is stated that the relevant pages of the muster roll maintained in the temple for the months of May 2019 and June 2019, which is produced as Exts.R4(c) would show that the petitioner was not in service since 09.05.2019. 6. The 3rd respondent has also placed a counter affidavit on record. It is stated that the proceedings dated 4.11.2015 issued by the Devaswom Commissioner only rejected the request made by the then Executive Officer for allowing the post of Day Watchman and Peon in the temple due to the financial condition of the temple as existed at that time. It is stated that thereafter, the Executive Officer had on 24.11.2018 requested the Board to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Watchman(Kaval). The Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board by Ext.R3(a) proceedings, dated 20.12.2018 had required the Executive Officer to place the matter before the Trustee Board and for the Board to take a final decision in the matter. It is stated that the Trustee Board met on 25.05.2019 pursuant to Ext.R3(a) and a decision had been taken to reinstate the petitioner as Kaval in the temple. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent that pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner had admittedly been working as Day Watchman in the temple and that the contention raised by the Executive Officer against the Board of Trustees is completely unwarranted and amounts to insubordination by the Executive Officer who is liable to function in accordance with the scheme. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would contend that going by the scheme prepared for administration of the temple as settled and notified on 25.03.1994, the Executive Officer is the appointing and disciplinary authority in respect of all posts in the temple. It is stated that an appeal lies as against any order of the Executive Officer to the Board of Trustees and from an order of such Trustee/Trustee Board to the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board. It is therefore contended that Ext.P2 was an appealable order and petitioner's remedy would have been to prefer an appeal before the Board of Trustees. 8. It is therefore contended that Ext.P2 was an appealable order and petitioner's remedy would have been to prefer an appeal before the Board of Trustees. 8. The learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board would contend that Ext.R4(a) communication dated 04.11.2015 would clearly show that there was no sanctioned post of Day Watchman in the temple and that the request made to sanction such a post had been rejected by the Commissioner on 4.11.2015. It is therefore stated that the continuance of the petitioner as Day Watchman without a post being sanctioned was completely illegal and that the petitioner can claim no benefit thereof. It is stated that thereafter, a fresh proposal had been sent up for reinstatement of the petitioner as Kaval and the issue was directed to be placed before the Trustee Board. It is stated that any order of reinstatement passed by the Trustee Board can only have effect from the date of such reinstatement as ordered by the Trustee Board by Ext.R3 (b) proceedings and that too, only after sanction from the Board. It is therefore contended that the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be allowed. 9. I have considered the contentions advanced. Sections 48 and 49 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 provides that the Board of Trustees vacancies, whether permanent or temporary, among the office holders or servants of religious institutions are to be filled up by the Trustee or the Trustee Board as the case may be. The power to impose punishments or suspend employees of the temple is also vested with the Trustee or Board of Trustees in terms of Section 49. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in its decisions in W.P. (C) No.3728/2014 and connected cases has clearly held that the power to appoint employees in a temple is specifically conferred on the Trustee and there can be no fetter placed on such power by the Malabar Devaswom Board under the guise of superintendence under Section 20 of the Act. It was further held as follows:- 31. The word superintendence and its derivatives are not words of precise import and must often be construed in the light of the context or unless controlled, they can easily cover and enter into the areas which were not intended. Superintendence connotes supervision. It was further held as follows:- 31. The word superintendence and its derivatives are not words of precise import and must often be construed in the light of the context or unless controlled, they can easily cover and enter into the areas which were not intended. Superintendence connotes supervision. It would mean, keeping in check, watch over the work of another and it would also imply direction, guidelines or even instructions. Superintendence is not dictation. When the Statute specifically permits certain functions to be discharged by the Trustee, such powers cannot be gelded in any manner by the Board by issuing executive orders under the guise of superintendence. As we have already noticed above, the power of superintendence is entrusted to the Board specifically as is the power to appoint given to the Trustee. Since the Act leaves no room for suspicion in Section 48 that the power of the Trustee to make appointments under it is in the nature of a plenary power, the Board can then only supervise such exercise of power by the Trustee to ensure that the Trustee has acted in accordance with the provisions and mandate of the Act and Rules. We are, however, afraid that the three conditions we have noticed above in this judgment, which are imposed by Exhibits P1 and P2 travel beyond the power of superintendence, but virtually is an attempt to arrogate the power of appointment to themselves by the Board. Further a perusal of the scheme prepared under Section 58 of the Act would show that administration of the temple is vested in the hereditary and non hereditary trustees and the executive office is to carry out the day to day administration taking into account the opinions of the trustees. 11. In the above view of the matter, the contention taken by the Executive Officer appointed under the scheme for administration that he is the appointing authority and the Trustee Board has no say in the matter is completely contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as the scheme. The power of the Executive Officer under the scheme to make appointments or to impose disciplinary measures can only be subject to the larger statutory right of the Trustee or Board of Trustees as specifically provided under the Act. The power of the Executive Officer under the scheme to make appointments or to impose disciplinary measures can only be subject to the larger statutory right of the Trustee or Board of Trustees as specifically provided under the Act. A reading of the provisions of the scheme relied on by the 4th respondent would also show that an appeal would lie from an order of the Executive Officer to the Trustee or Board of Trustees. It is therefore clear that the Executive Officer would be acting under the directions of Trustee or on behalf of the Trustee or Board of Trustees as its paid Executive Officer as the name of the post itself suggests. In the matter of appointment or enforcement of discipline, an Executive Officer of a temple cannot have a stand which is contrary to the stand of the Trustee who is a statutory appointing authority. 12. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that the petitioner would not be entitled to continue in service in the light of Ext.R4(a) proceedings issued by the Commissioner would therefore militate against the right of the Trustee to make appointments of officers or employees in the temple as provided in Section 48. 13. The petitioner was a person who had been appointed as Vazhipadu clerk. Ext.P1 provided that he would be reverted and accommodated as Day Watchman. It appears that the post of Day Watchman was not sanctioned in the temple. The then Executive Officer had therefore sent up a proposal for approving the reinstatement of the petitioner as watchman(Kaval) by a request dated 24.11.2018. By Ext.R3(a) proceedings, the Executive Officer was directed to place the matter before the Trustee Board for final decision as to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner long ago. It appears that Ext.R3(b) decision has been taken by the Trustee Board as directed to finalise the proceedings by reinstating the petitioner. The said resolution was dated 25.5.2019. It was on 06.06.2019 that the 3rd respondent submitted before this Court that the petitioner was continuing in service. Ext.R4(c) Muster Roll produced by the 4th respondent would also show that the petitioner had been working in the temple and making attendance at least till 9.5.2019. It is seen recorded in (Ext.R4(c)) that his services are terminated from the non existent post. Ext.R4(c) Muster Roll produced by the 4th respondent would also show that the petitioner had been working in the temple and making attendance at least till 9.5.2019. It is seen recorded in (Ext.R4(c)) that his services are terminated from the non existent post. It is therefore clear that the petitioner had been continuing as an employee of the temple pursuant to Ext.P1. Whatever be the nature of continuance, I am of the opinion that it was for the 3rd respondent, who is the appointing authority to submit whether the petitioner is in service or not. The Executive Officer appointed to carry out the decisions of the Board of Trustees cannot, in the matter of appointment of an employee, take a decision which is directly opposed to the stand of the Trustee or Board of Trustees. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Ext.P2 order issued by the Executive Officer directing the petitioner not to report for duty without reference to the Trustee is completely illegal and unsustainable. Ext.P2 order is set aside. In view of Ext.R3(b) proceedings of the Board of trustees dated 25.5.2019, the petitioner will be entitled to continue in service. In case the petitioner is continuing against a sanctioned post of watchman (kaval) in the temple, the petitioner's name will be included in the schedule of establishment and the petitioner will be paid accordingly. The question of approval for the retrospective engagement of the petitioner from the date of Ext.P1 will be appropriately considered by the respondents in accordance with law. In case the post to which the petitioner is to be accommodated is not available in the schedule of establishment, the respondents shall take appropriate steps to regularise the appointment after taking note of the financial situation of the temple and considering whether the salary can be met in terms of such financial situations as presently existing. Appropriate decision shall be taken, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to continue in service on the strength of Ext.R3(b) and the 4th respondent will act in terms of the directions issued by the Board of Trustees. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.