JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- “i) To Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and to quash Ext.P4 on so far as it directs fresh appointment to the post of Clerk occupied by the Petitioner; (ii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the Respondents to release the leave surrender to the Petitioner who is working as Clerk and pass appropriate orders on that behalf within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court (iii) To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 5th respondent to approve the appointment of the Petitioner as Clerk and pay all consequential benefits;” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was temporarily appointed on daily wages as Clerk in the 5th respondent Devaswom from 1-6-2011 onwards. Pursuant to the decision taken by the Area Committee as also the report of the inspector as well as the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner was appointed regularly by Ext.P2 order on 25-5-2015. The petitioner's application for leave surrender was rejected by Ext.P3 order of the 5th respondent stating that the petitioner’s appointment is not approved by the Commissioner. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a copy of Ext.P4 order. The order takes note of the various reports and the fact that the petitioner is continuing from 1-6-2011 onwards, it directs the sanctioning of the post and further directed fresh selection to the post. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 is totally without jurisdiction. The Commissioner or the Malabar Devaswom Board has no power or authority to effect the appointment of temple employees. The Schedule of establishment framed by the trustee is to be approved by the Area Committee as per Rules framed under Section 100(2) (y) of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act. Therefore, the Commissioner’s exercise of power is totally without jurisdiction. Exts. P3 and P4 are therefore challenged. 5. The Schedule of establishment framed by the trustee is to be approved by the Area Committee as per Rules framed under Section 100(2) (y) of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act. Therefore, the Commissioner’s exercise of power is totally without jurisdiction. Exts. P3 and P4 are therefore challenged. 5. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision of this Court in W.A.No.2407 of 2019. Paragraph 8 thereof read as follows :- “8. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, Section 48 of the Act confers power on the Board of Trustees to make appointment of officeholders and servants in religious institutions. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner is also correct in submitting that the Rules framed under Section 100(2) (y) of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Rules speaks of the appointing authority and the power conferred on the Board is only to include the name of the employee appointed by the Trustees in the schedule of appointment under Section 25 of the Act. The Commissioner does not have any power to terminate a person duly appointed by the Trustees either under the general powers of the superintendence conferred under the Act or indirectly by refusing to include in the schedule of establishment; a person duly appointed by the appointing authority, the Trustees.” 6. It was found that the Commissioner does not have the power to terminate the petitioner or find the selection to be improper after the passage of considerable time. The writ appeal was, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/-to the first respondent, who was the petitioner in the writ petition. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only power of the Commissioner with regard to the employees of temples is the supervisory power. Section 48 of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) specifically empowers the trustee to fill up vacancies of office holders or servants of religious institutions. Section 25 provides for preparation of register for all religious institutions. Section 25(1)(c) provides that names of all offices to which any salary, emolument or perquisite is attached and the nature, time and conditions of service in each case shall be entered in the register. Section 25 provides for preparation of register for all religious institutions. Section 25(1)(c) provides that names of all offices to which any salary, emolument or perquisite is attached and the nature, time and conditions of service in each case shall be entered in the register. Section 25(2) provides that the register shall be prepared, signed and verified by the trustee and submitted by him through the Area Committee to the Commissioner. The Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner shall recommend alterations, omissions for additions in the register. Section 25(4) provides that the Commissioner may, after receiving the register and the recommendations of the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner and making such further enquiry as he may consider necessary direct the trustee to make such alterations omissions or additions in the register as the Commissioner may deem fit. 8. Section 100 of the Act provides for the rule making power of the Government. Section 100(2)(y) provides for rules to be made providing the qualifications to be possessed by the officers and servants for appointment to non-hereditary offices in religious institutions, the qualifications to be possessed by hereditary servants for succession to office and the conditions of service of all such officers and servants. Rules have been framed by the department under section 100(2)(y) of the Act. Rule 10 of the said Rules provides that the pay and emoluments in cash and in kind of each officer and servant shall be in accordance with a schedule of establishment framed by the trustee and approved by the Area Committee in the case of institutions under the jurisdiction of the Committee and by the Commissioner in the case of other institutions. The trustee shall not alter the schedule without the previous permission of the Area Committee or the Commissioner, as the case may be. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner had admittedly been working as Vazhipadu Clerk from 1.6.2011. The trustee board on 20.7.2012 decided to request the Area Committee to sanction the post and to approve the petitioner's appointment against the said post. The Area Committee on 29.12.2014 permitted the creation of the post and decided to recommend the approval of the appointment of the petitioner against the post to the Commissioner. The trustee board on 20.7.2012 decided to request the Area Committee to sanction the post and to approve the petitioner's appointment against the said post. The Area Committee on 29.12.2014 permitted the creation of the post and decided to recommend the approval of the appointment of the petitioner against the post to the Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 13.1.2015 forwarded a recommendation to the Commissioner to approve the sanctioning of the post and to approve the appointment of the petitioner which was made in accordance with law. A reading of the last paragraph of Exhibit P1 would make this aspect abundantly clear. It is on this recommendation that Exhibit P4 decision was taken by the second respondent. The second respondent proceeds on the basis that a permission is required for the sanctioning of the post as also for the appointment of the petitioner. By Exhibit P4 the post is sanctioned prospectively and a fresh selection procedure is required to be held for the said post. These are under challenge before this court. 10. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the second respondent. On the merits of the matter, it is submitted that the Chandanakavu Devaswom is a 'C' grade temple and that the temple is under the jurisdiction of the 4th respondent. It is stated that the right of administration is vested in the Board of Trustees but the trustees are bound to obey the lawful orders as provided in Section 23 of the Act. 11. Paragraph 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit state as follows:- “9. The post Vazhipadu clerk was sanctioned by Exhibit P4 order, as such the date of occurrence of vacancy is only w.e.f the date of Exhibit P4 order i.e., 23.11.2016. So appointment and process of selection prior to Exhibit P4 order can be considered only as illegal and irregular. The averment in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed after following a due procedure and fair process of selection and he is continuing for the last 16 years temporarily and permanently, denial of his approval is totally against the provisions of the Rules are nonest in the eye of law. The averment in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed after following a due procedure and fair process of selection and he is continuing for the last 16 years temporarily and permanently, denial of his approval is totally against the provisions of the Rules are nonest in the eye of law. So much so, the Board of trustees who is supposed to be the watch dogs of justice and equity are flouting laws to his likes and dislikes and appointment is made by him in accordance with his whims and fancies without adherence to any rules or norms which is squarely against the principles enshrined in Article of the Constitution of India. 10. It is respectfully submitted that conditions regarding appointments to public posts have been specifically dealt by the constitutional bench of our Apex Court In Secretary, State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umedevi & others in 2006 (4) SCC 1 wherein it has been specifically held that regularization of temporary employees, however long they were employed in temporary posts does not grant the status of permanency and it dehors the Constitutional Scheme of public employment. It was further held that there is a need for addressing concerns of equity for all and not just a few, while ignoring equity for teeming millions seeking employment and a fair opportunity for competing for employment. It was further held that State and its instrumentalities should not encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. Since then first respondent with an intention to give sanctity to his illegal, arbitrary and invalid appointment decided to regularize which was made without any rationale or eligibility criteria and against accepted modes of appointment.“ Relying on decisions of this Court, it is contended that the Commissioner has full power to examine whether appointments made by the trustee are in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Commissioner has the power to direct the trustee to cancel such appointment if it is found that the appointments are vitiated in some manner. It is contended that the supervisory power of the Commissioner would extent to considering the validity of appointments made by the trustee. It is contended that the supervisory power of the Commissioner would extent to considering the validity of appointments made by the trustee. It is further submitted that even if it is admitted that the trustee is the appointing authority in respect of employees of a temple, it is for the Commissioner to sanction posts against which appointments can be made by the trustee. It is submitted that till Exhibit P4 order was passed, there was no post of vazhipadu clerk available in the Chandanakavu Devaswom to which the petitioner could have been appointed and that therefore Exhibit P4 is valid in law. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submits that the petitioner had been appointed in accordance with law and had been continuing as vazhipadu clerk from 1.6.2011 onwards. However, it is submitted that taking note of the financial situation of the temple, the appointment of the petitioner may be limited from the date of sanction of the post and its inclusion in the schedule of establishment by the Area Committee, that is, with effect from 29.12.2014. 13. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is an admitted fact that the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board has supervisory powers in the matter of administration of temples coming under the Board. However, Section 48 of the Act specifically empowers the trustee to fill up vacancies, whether permanent or temporary, among the office holders or servants of the religious institutions. Section 25(1)(c) provides for a preparation of register in which names of all offices to which salary, emolument for perquisite is attached and the nature, time and conditions of service in each case. Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act specifies that the schedule of establishment framed by the trustee is to be approved by the Area Committee in the case of institutions under the jurisdiction of the Committee and by the Commissioner in the case of other institutions. In the instant case, it is a specific case of the petitioner that the Chandanakavu Devaswom where the petitioner was working is an institution coming under the 4th respondent, Area Committee. This aspect is specifically admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent as well. In the instant case, it is a specific case of the petitioner that the Chandanakavu Devaswom where the petitioner was working is an institution coming under the 4th respondent, Area Committee. This aspect is specifically admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent as well. If that be so, Exhibit P1 communication of the Assistant Commissioner specifically states that the Area Committee by its decision on 29.12.2014 had sanctioned a post of vazhipadu clerk in the Chandanakavu Devaswom and had requested permission for the appointment of the petitioner against the said post. It is borne out by the records that the schedule of establishment had been altered by including the post newly sanctioned by the Area Committee and that the petitioner was working against the post and drawing salary. Therefore, what was sent up to the second respondent to consider was the approval of the appointment of the petitioner against the post which was sanctioned by the Area Committee in terms of Rule 10 on 29.12.2014. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was only when the petitioner submitted an application for earned leave surrender on 27.12.2016 that the petitioner was given Exhibit P3 reply by the executive officer stating that Exhibit P4 had been passed on 23.11.2016 by the Commissioner. Exhibit P4 order of the Commissioner proceeds on the basis that the creation of post and the appointment of the petitioner both require the sanction of the Commissioner. This Court has repeatedly held that the Madras H.R & C.E Act and rules made thereunder do not contemplate any approval of an appointment made by the trustee, who is the appointing authority. Rule 10 of the rules made under section 100(2)(y) specifies that it is for the Area Committee to approve any alteration in the schedule of establishment where the temple comes under the jurisdiction of such Area Committee. This Court in Kunhirama Variar vs. State of Kerala [ 2011(1) KLT 750 ] has held that the Devaswom being an autonomous body governed by a scheme, has the power to appoint its officers and Malabar Devaswom Board or its officers have no power to make such appointments. This Court in Kunhirama Variar vs. State of Kerala [ 2011(1) KLT 750 ] has held that the Devaswom being an autonomous body governed by a scheme, has the power to appoint its officers and Malabar Devaswom Board or its officers have no power to make such appointments. In W.A.No.2407 of 2019 also, a Division Bench of this Court held that where an appointment had been made pursuant to a selection by the designated appointing authority, the Commissioner does not have the power to terminate the services of such employee or to find the selection to be improper after the passage of considerable period of time. In Parakkad Sree Bhagavathi Devaswom vs. Malabar Devaswom Board 2010 (4) KLT 568 , another Division Bench of this Court had clearly found that the power of supervision conferred on the officers of the Malabar Devaswom Board cannot extend to the power to appoint employees. 15. In the instant case, the trustee had made a request for sanctioning of a post of vazhipadu clerk. The only provision with regard to the sanctioning of the post is by inclusion of the post in the schedule of establishment. Rule 10 specifically provides that in the case of temples under the jurisdiction of the Area Committee, it is for the Area Committee to carry out the necessary corrections to the schedule of establishment. The alteration of the schedule by the trustee is also subject to the previous permission of the Area Committee in a case where the temple functions under the jurisdiction of the Area Committee. Exhibit P1 would show that the Area Committee had permitted such alteration of the schedule by including the post of vazhipadu clerk as early as on 29.11.2014. The alteration of the schedule by the trustee is also subject to the previous permission of the Area Committee in a case where the temple functions under the jurisdiction of the Area Committee. Exhibit P1 would show that the Area Committee had permitted such alteration of the schedule by including the post of vazhipadu clerk as early as on 29.11.2014. Though the learned standing counsel for the Malabar Devaswom vehemently argued that the power to alter the schedule is vested in the Commissioner, I am of the opinion that in the light of the specific provisions in Rule 10 of the rules made under Section 100(2)(y) and the admission that the temple is one within the jurisdiction of the Area Committee, in a case where the Area Committee has sanctioned the post and included it in the schedule of establishment, there would be no further power in the Commissioner to pass an order in the nature of Exhibit P4 sanctioning a post from a later date and directing a fresh appointment to be made in spite of the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioner as is evident in Exhibit P1. 16. Exhibit P1 specifically states that the appointment of the petitioner had been made in accordance with law by the trustee. In an appropriate case, the power of general superintendence of the Commissioner can be exercised to correct any corrupt or capricious act of the trustee in making appointments without reference to the qualifications prescribed for a post or where there are valid allegations raised with regard to the conduct of the selection. However, in the absence of any such allegations, there would be no power in the Commissioner to cancel an appointment duly made by the trustee in a post included in the schedule of establishment of the temple. 17. In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the second respondent are untenable in law. The petition is, therefore, liable to be allowed. Exhibits P3 and P4 are set aside. There will be a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the post of vazhipadu clerk with effect from 29.12.2014 the date on which the Area Committee sanctioned the post and permitted the inclusion in the schedule of establishment. Petitioner shall be granted all benefits consequent thereto. Writ Petition is ordered accordingly.