JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The Malabar Devaswom Board and the officials concerned of the said Board, who were arrayed as respondents 1 to 4 in W.P.(C) No.3175/2017, filed by the 1st respondent herein have instituted the aforecaptioned Intra Court Appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, to impugn the judgment dated 21.10.2020, rendered by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition (civil). 2. Heard Sri. R. Lakshmi Narayan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board appearing for the appellants/respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition (civil), Sri. K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein (writ petitioner) and Sri. M. Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent herein/5th respondent in the writ petition (civil) (Executive Officer of the temple). 3. The writ petitioner was initially temporarily appointed on daily wages basis as 'clerk' in the 2nd respondent temple/Devaswom from 01.06.2011 onwards. Further the Area Committee had taken decision as per proceedings dated 29.12.2014 (referred to as item No.3 in Ext.P-1 ), ordering that the post of 'vazhipadu clerk' in the said temple is sanctioned. Further, it is also decided by the Area Committee thereby, on the premise that approval of an incumbent like the writ petitioner would require approval of the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board, the proposal for approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner was so forwarded by the Assistant Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board to the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board, Kozhikode. As per Exhibit P-1 letter dated 13.01.2015 the matter has been forwarded to the Commissioner for sanction/creation of the post as well as for the approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner. Later, the respondent temple/Devaswom has issued Exhibit P-2 proceedings dated 25.05.2015, stating that the decision to appoint the writ petitioner was lawfully taken by the Trustee Board of the temple as per proceedings dated 20.07.2012 and that the report of the inspector was also obtained on 29.11.2014 and the matter had also secured the approval of the Area Committee as per proceedings dated 29.12.2014 and that the subject matter is also referred to in Exhibit P-1 dated 13.01.2015 and that taking into consideration these aspects, the writ petitioner will stand appointed as 'clerk' with effect from 01.06.2015 in the scale of pay of Rs.2200-3650 etc. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioner had discharged his duties and functions and when he had applied for leave surrender benefits, the same was denied by the respondent temple/Devaswom as per Exhibit P-3 dated 30.12.2016, citing the ground that formal sanction/approval of the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board has not been obtained and that the name of the writ petitioner is not included in the schedule of the establishment as envisaged in Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Madras Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'). It appears that even before the issuance of Exhibit P-3 dated 30.12.2016, the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board has issued the impugned Exhibit P-4 proceedings dated 23.11.2016, ordering that taking into account the various proceedings referred to in Exhibit P-1, the approval/sanction is accorded by him for the creation of fresh post of 'Clerk/Vazhipadu Clerk' in the abovesaid temple. However, it is ordered in Exhibit P-4 by the Commissioner that the post so sanctioned should be notified for fresh selection from amongst the eligible candidates and thereby clearly implying that the request for the approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner to the said post of 'Clerk/Vazhipadu Clerk' stands declined. It is this proceedings at Exhibit P-4 that has been challenged by the writ petitioner in the aforesaid writ proceedings. 4. The learned Single Judge has taken the view as per the impugned judgment rendered on 21.10.2020 that the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not contemplate or mandate that creation of post would require prior approval of the Commissioner or that the appointment of incumbents like the writ petitioner would require the approval or sanction of the Commissioner or the officials concerned of the Malabar Devaswom Board and that going by the provisions contained under Section 48 of the Act, the sole appointing authority is the temple trustee concerned and further that what is required is that once the temple trustee exercises prerogative in making appointment to the post in question, the name of the incumbent may have to be included in the Schedule of establishment envisaged in Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act. On this premise, the learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned Exhibit P-4 order in its entirety and has directed that the benefits due to the writ petitioner in pursuance of his regular appointment should be accorded to him. 5. Both sides have been heard in extenso. 6. From the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, it appears that the main focus of their arguments is to the effect that the stand taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment that even for creation of fresh post in a temple, would not require approval/sanction of the Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board is per se, legally wrong and that aspect of the mater has been dealt with in the judgments of two Division Benches of this Court; the first in the judgment dated 08.07.2008 in W.P.(C) No.4450/2005 and connected cases as well as the decision in Zamorin Raja v. Government of Kerala [ 2016 (4) KLT 841 ], paragraph No.26 thereof. 7. It will be pertinent to refer some of the relevant provisions of the aforementioned Act as amended. Sections 25 & 26 of the Act read as follows:- “25. Preparation of register for all institutions.--(1) For every religious institution, there shall be prepared and maintained a register showing-- (a) the names of past and present trustees and particulars as to the custom, if any, regarding succession to the office of trustee; (b) particulars of the scheme of administration and of the dittam or scale of expenditure; (c) the names of all offices to which any salary, emolument or perquisite is attached and the nature, time and conditions of service in each case; (d) the jewels, gold, silver, precious stones, vessels and utensils, and other movables belonging to the institution, with their estimated value; (e) particulars of all other endowments of the institution and of all title deeds and other documents; (f) particulars of the idols and other images in or connected with the institution, whether intended for worship or for being carried in processions; (g) such other particulars as may be required by the Commissioner. (2) The register shall be prepared, signed and verified by the trustee of the institution concerned or by his authorized agent and submitted by him to the Commissioner, directly in the case of a math, through the Area Committee, in case the institution is subject to the jurisdiction of an Area Committee, and through the Assistant Commissioner in other cases, within three months from the commencement of this Act or from the founding of the institution, as the case may be, or within such further period as may be allowed by the Commissioner, the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner; Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where a register so signed and verified has been submitted to the Board before the commencement of this Act. (3) The Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner, if the register is submitted through it or him, may, after such inquiry as it or he may consider necessary, recommend such alterations, omissions or additions in the register as it or he may think fit. (4) The Commissioner may, after receiving the register and recommendations of the Area Committee or of the Assistant Commissioner with respect thereto and making such further inquiry as he may consider necessary, direct the trustee to make such alterations, omissions or additions in the register as the Commissioner may deem fit. (5) The trustee shall carry out the orders of the Commissioner and then submit three copies of the register as corrected to the Commissioner for approval. (6) One copy of the register as approved by the Commissioner shall be furnished to the trustee and one to the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner concerned, if any. 26. Annual verification of the Register.--The trustee or his authorised agent shall scrutinize the entries in the register every year and submit to the Commissioner for his approval, directly or through the Area Committee or through the Assistant Commissioner as the case may require, a verified statement showing the alterations, omissions or additions required in the register; and the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (6) of Section 25 shall apply in relation to such statement as they apply in relation to a register.” 8. Section 100(1) of the Act provides that the State Government may make Rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act and not inconsistent therewith. Section 100(1) of the Act provides that the State Government may make Rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act and not inconsistent therewith. Section 100(2)(y) of the Act stipulates that in particular and without prejudice to generality of the foregoing power, the Government shall have power to make Rules with reference to the following matters:- “(a) xxxx xxxx xxxx (b) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (y) the qualification to be possessed by the officers and servants for appointment to non-hereditary offices in religious institutions, the qualifications to be possessed by the hereditary servants for succession to office and the conditions of service of all such officers and servants; (z) xxxx” 9. Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act reads as follows:- “Rule 10. 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.” 10. Section 18 of the Act provides as follows:- “Sec. 18. Power of Commissioner to call for records and pass orders.--(1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner, or any Area Committee, or of any trustee not being the trustee of a math or of a specific endowment attached to a math, in respect of any proceeding under this Act (not being a proceeding in respect of which a suit or an appeal to a Court is provided by this Act), to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceeding, or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein. (2) If any such decision or order has been passed by any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner, or by the trustee of any religious institution other than one included in the list published under Section 38, and it appears to the Commissioner that the decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. (2) If any such decision or order has been passed by any Deputy or Assistant Commissioner, or by the trustee of any religious institution other than one included in the list published under Section 38, and it appears to the Commissioner that the decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. (3)(a) If any such decision or order has been passed by any Area Committee or by the trustee of any religious institution included in the list published under Section 38, the Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, remit the matter together with his observations in regard thereto, to the Committee or trustee for reconsideration of the decision or order and report to the Commissioner within a time to be specified by him in this behalf. (b) On receipt of, and after considering, such report, it shall be open to the Commissioner to modify, annul or reverse the decision or order, or the decision or order as revised after such reconsideration, as the case may be. (c) If the report is not received by the Commissioner within the time specified or such further time as may be granted by him the Commissioner may modify, annul or reverse the decision or order of the Area Committee or trustee, as the case may be. (4) The Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any party under sub-section (2) or clause (b) or clause (c) of subsection (3), without hearing him or giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (5) The Commissioner may stay the execution of any decision or order of the nature referred to in sub-section (1), pending the exercise of his powers under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) in respect thereof.” 11. Section 8A of the Act provides as follows:- “8A. Supervision and control by the Board.--Subject to supervision and control of the Board, and other provisions of this Act, the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners and Area Committees exercising any power or performing any duty under this Act, before the commencement of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Act, 2008, shall continue to exercise such powers and perform such duties, as officers of the Board, as if those powers are delegated to them by the Board.” 12. A reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act would mandate that for every religious institution, there should be prepared and maintained, a register showing the various details covered by Clauses (a) to (g) thereof. In particular, Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 25 clearly mandates that for every religious institutions there, should be prepared and maintained a register showing the names of all offices to which any salary, emolument or perquisite is attached and the nature, time and conditions of service in each case. 13. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 further provide that the register shall be prepared, signed and verified by the trustee of the institution concerned or by his authorized agent and submitted by him to the Commissioner, directly in the case of a math, through the Area Committee, in case the institution is subject to the jurisdiction of an Area Committee, and through the Assistant Commissioner in other cases, within three months from the commencement of this Act or from the founding of the institution, as the case may be, or within such further period as may be allowed by the Commissioner, the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner, etc. The proviso thereto is not relevant for the present purpose. Sub-section (3) of Section 25 would further mandate that the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner, if the register is submitted through it or him, may, after such inquiry as it or he may consider necessary, recommend such alterations, omissions or additions in the register as it or he may think fit. Further, Sub-section (4) of Section 25 would indicate therein that the Commissioner may, after receiving the register and recommendations of the Area Committee or of the Assistant Commissioner with respect thereto and after making such further inquiry as he may consider necessary, direct the trustee to make such alterations, omissions or additions in the register as the Commissioner may deem fit. Sub-section (5) of Section 25 would clearly stipulate that the trustee shall carry out the orders of the Commissioner and then submit three copies of the register as corrected to the Commissioner for approval. Sub-section (6) of Section 25 would also mandate that one copy of the register as approved by the Commissioner shall be furnished to the trustee and one to the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner concerned, if any. 14. Sub-section (6) of Section 25 would also mandate that one copy of the register as approved by the Commissioner shall be furnished to the trustee and one to the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner concerned, if any. 14. A reading of Section 25 would also indicate that the provisions therein are to be complied with, within a period of 3 months from the date of commencement of the Act or from the founding of the institution, as the case may be. 15. However, Section 26 deals with annual verification of Register and the said provision would mandate that the trustee or his authorised agent shall scrutinize the entries in the register every year and submit to the Commissioner for his approval, directly or through the Area Committee or through the Assistant Commissioner as the case may require, a verified statement showing the alterations, omissions or additions required in the register; and the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (6) of Section 25 shall apply in relation to such statement as they apply in relation to a register. 16. Hence it can be seen from a combined cumulative reading of Sections 25 & 26 that the provisions contemplated in Section 25 are also to be made applicable for the annual verification of the statutory register by virtue of the mandates contained in Section 26. 17. Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act would stipulate that the pay and emoluments in cash and in kind of each officer and servant shall be in accordance with the 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 authorised institutions and that the trustee shall not alter the schedule without the previous permission of the Area Committee or the commission as the case may be. 18. Sub-section (1) of section 48 of the Act would clearly and unambiguously mandate that vacancies whether permanent or temporary, amongst the office-holders or servants of a religious institution shall be filled up by the trustee in cases where the office or service is not hereditary, etc. 19. 18. Sub-section (1) of section 48 of the Act would clearly and unambiguously mandate that vacancies whether permanent or temporary, amongst the office-holders or servants of a religious institution shall be filled up by the trustee in cases where the office or service is not hereditary, etc. 19. Now it may also be pertinent to refer to some of the decisions rendered by this Court in relation to matters connected with appointment to various posts in a temple coming under the purview of the Malabar Devaswom Board in terms of the provisions contained in the HR & CE Act. 20. A Division Bench of this Court in the common judgment dated 08.07.2008 in W.P.(C) No.4450/2005 & connected cases has categorically directed in the last paragraph thereof that if any new post is to be created, then he (temple trustee concerned) will take prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner. A Division Bench of this Court in the subsequent judgment in the case in Zamorin Raja v. Government of Kerala [ 2016 (4) KLT 841 (DB)] has held in paragraph No.26 thereof that the stipulation that the trustee will have to ask for prior sanction of the Commissioner to fill up the vacancies, does not appear to be legally justifiable and that under the statutory scheme, the trustee as per the statutory mandate contained in Section 48 is entitled to make appointments as and when vacancies arise and the Act of Rules do not anywhere require the Trustee to obtain such prior permission of the Commissioner for making such appointments. However, the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No.26 thereof has also held that eventhough it is not provided in Section 48, the only caveat would be on account of the directions contained in the aforementioned judgment dated 08.07.2008 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4450/2005 & connected cases that the trustee should necessarily obtain prior approval of the Commissioner if a new post is to be created and filled up. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 17.08.2017 in W.P.(C) No.37493/2016 in paragraph No.8 thereof has also referred to the abovesaid judgment dated 08.07.2008 in W.P.(C) No.4450/2015 about the direction that trustees should necessarily obtain prior approval of the Commissioner for creation of any new post, but that later in W.P.(C) No.3728/2014, it has been held that the Board cannot insist that the trustees shall obtain prior sanction for filling up the vacancies. 21. Hence the broad view taken by the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court is that for creation of a new post in the temple/devaswom concerned, the temple trustee will have to necessarily obtain prior approval of the Commissioner for such purpose but that for filling up of the vacancies in the sanctioned posts, no such approval is required either before or after making the appointments to sanctioned posts. 22. In that regard Section 49 may also have some bearing inasmuch as it is interalia stipulated in Section 49(1) that all office-holders and servants attached to a religious institution or in receipt of any emolument or perquisite therefrom shall be under the control of the trustee, etc. 23. However, it is to be noted that the abovesaid Division Bench judgments in W.P.(C) No.4450/2005 as well as the one reported in 2016 (4) KLT 841 (DB), do not make any detailed discussion as to the source of the power flowing from the Act and Rules for taking the view that the prior approval of the Commissioner should necessarily be obtained by the trustee as far as creation of a new post is concerned. In that regard, the provisions of Sections 25 & 26 would assume great importance. The broad provisions of Sections 25 & 26 have already been discussed in one of the previous paragraphs hereinabove. We will have to focus mainly on Section 25(1)(c) as well as Subsections (2) to (6) thereof and the provisions contained in Section 26, for considering the source of the power in that regard. A reading of Section 25(1)(c) would indicate that a statutory register will have to be prepared showing the names of all offices to which any salary, emoluments or perquisite is attached and the nature, time and conditions of service in each case, etc. 24. The word used in Section 25(1)(c) is 'offices' and not 'officers' or officials. A reading of Section 25(1)(c) would indicate that a statutory register will have to be prepared showing the names of all offices to which any salary, emoluments or perquisite is attached and the nature, time and conditions of service in each case, etc. 24. The word used in Section 25(1)(c) is 'offices' and not 'officers' or officials. The word 'office' may have various connotations, and in ordinary usage it may denote a building in which an official establishment is housed. However, the said ordinary meaning in layman's usage is not relevant or pertinent in the present case. Webster's dictionary has given the meaning of 'office' as (a) a special duty, charge, or position conferred by an exercise of governmental authority and for a public purpose; a position of authority to exercise a public function and to receive whatever emoluments may belong to it or as a position of responsibility or some degree of executive authority. It may also have other meanings in the prescribed form of 'service of worship' in the context of divine matters by what is conveyed through the expression 'divine office'. 25. Hence, the more appropriate contextual meaning of the word 'office' would be 'a special duty, charge, or position conferred by an exercise of governmental authority and for a public purpose; and as a position of authority to exercise a public function and to receive whatever emoluments may belong to it, etc. Hence, in the context of the aforesaid provisions contained in Section 25 the word 'offices' will have to be understood as something broadly akin to 'posts'. 26. Of course, in an entirely different context, this Court has held in decisions as in All Kerala Poor Aid Legal Association v. Chief Justice ( 1990 (1) KLT 1 , paragraphs 7, 8, 9 & 22), Aboobaker v. M. Ratna Singh ( 1992 (1) KLT 41 , paragraph 9, 10 & 11), etc., wherein a fine distinction has been made between “offices” and “posts” and that Judges, Prosecutors, etc. can be said to be holding “offices” and not posts in a service. Such distinction has been made in an entirely different contextual approach and the same cannot be imported in the present case dealing with the statutory scheme under Section 25 read with Section 26 of the HR & CE Act. 27. can be said to be holding “offices” and not posts in a service. Such distinction has been made in an entirely different contextual approach and the same cannot be imported in the present case dealing with the statutory scheme under Section 25 read with Section 26 of the HR & CE Act. 27. We are fully justified in arriving at this view that the expression 'offices' used in Section 25(1)(c) could be something broadly akin to posts, by the specific language employed by the legislature in the second limb of Clause (C) that even the nature, time and conditions of service in each case will have to be stipulated. 28. A reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 25 would indicate that the primary decision and responsibility in preparation of statutory register is with the trustee going by the mandate contained therein. However, the said decision so arrived at by the temple trustee, will have to be forwarded to the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, in cases as the instant one going by the mandate contained in Sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 25. Once the proposal regarding the decision of temple trustee reaches the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, then the said functionary concerned will have to conduct appropriate inquiry as he/she may consider necessary alterations and then the Area Committee or Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, will have to make recommendations to the Commissioner about any alterations, omissions or additions in the register prepared by the primary authority concerned, viz., the temple trustee. 29. Further by the mandate of Sub-section (4) of Section 25, the Commissioner, after receiving the register so prepared by the temple trustee in terms of Section 25(2) and the recommendations of the Area Committee or of the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, as envisaged in Sub-section (3) thereof, will have to make further enquiries as to he/she (Commissioner) may consider necessary and then the Commissioner will have to direct the trustee to make such alterations, omissions or additions in the register as the Commissioner may deem fit and proper. The legislature has further explicitly mandated in Sub-section (5) of Section 25 that the trustee shall be under the bounden statutory duty to carryout the orders of the Commissioner as ordered in Section 25(4) and the trustee will have to then submit 3 copies of the register as corrected, to the Commissioner for approval. 30. Thereafter, the Commissioner is to accord approval to the said register so finally prepared going by the mandate contained in Section 25(6) and one of the copies of the register, so finally approved by the Commissioner will have to be furnished by the Commissioner to the Trustee and to the Area Committee or to the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be. This process envisaged in Section 25 is to be conducted as an annual feature of filing of statutory register by virtue of the mandate contained in Section 25. The said process of addition, omission or alteration of the statutory register every year will have to be undertaken by the trustee and then forwarded to the Area Committee or to Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, who will have to conduct their enquiries in the matter and then make necessary recommendations to the Commissioner, who after conducting his own enquiries, may take decision as to the alterations, additions or omissions that may be required in the register so prepared by the temple trustee. Thereafter the temple trustee shall be under the bounden statutory duty to comply with the said directions of the Commissioner and send the corrected register for the approval of the Commissioner and the Commissioner will have to consider the same for approval to such corrected register as envisaged in Sub-section (6) of Section 25. 31. Thereafter the temple trustee shall be under the bounden statutory duty to comply with the said directions of the Commissioner and send the corrected register for the approval of the Commissioner and the Commissioner will have to consider the same for approval to such corrected register as envisaged in Sub-section (6) of Section 25. 31. The said statutory scheme contained in Sections 25 & 26 would clearly indicate that not only existing posts and offices but also new posts or offices which are to be created, should be the subject matter of the decision of the temple trustee in terms of Section 25(2) read with Section 26 but the said decision regarding the creation of new post etc., by way of addition or alteration to the existing register will have to go through the rigmarole of the scrutiny and screening of the Area Committee or Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, in terms of Subsection (3) of Section 25 and then will have to again go to the Commissioner in terms of Section 25(4) read with Section 26, who should take a decision regarding the alterations, omissions or additions that is to be ultimately made in the register, as the Commissioner may deem fit. Any such decision taken by the Commissioner to the abovesaid statutory scheme, shall have to be complied with by the temple trustee, who will then have to furnish a copy of the corrected register to the Commissioner for approval and thereafter it is for the Commissioner to consider and accord approval to the said corrected register. 32. Of course, if the temple trustee has a genuine legally justiciable grievance that the decision of any of the statutory functionaries like the Area Committee or the Assistant Commissioner as the case may be or the Commissioner, etc., would require legal interdiction, etc., it is for him to agitate such issues strictly in the manner known to law. 33. Further, it is to be noted that the provisions contained in Sections 48 & 49 come after the provisions contained in Sections 25 & 26. 33. Further, it is to be noted that the provisions contained in Sections 48 & 49 come after the provisions contained in Sections 25 & 26. Therefore, the existing posts and the new posts will have to go through the rigmarole of Sections 25 & 26 and if any fresh post is necessarily to be created for an year, the decision in that regard would be validly taken by the temple trustee but the same would be subject to the abovesaid rigorous procedure and the approval for the said process has to be ultimately given by the Commissioner in terms of Section 25(6) read with Section 26 of the Act. It is only after obtaining approval of the Commissioner for any such fresh post to be created by the temple trustee that the appointment could be made. 34. In other words, the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in various judgments as in the judgment dated 08.07.2008 in W.P.(C) No.4450/2005 and connected cases as well as in batch of cases which is the subject matter of the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4342/2014 and W.P.(C) No.3728/2014 & connected cases [ 2016 (4) KLT 841 ], paragraph No.26 thereof, would reflect the correct legal position in the matter. The source of power for the Commissioner for according approval is in the manner indicated hereinabove. 35. It is after this process of preparation and finalisation of statutory register as envisaged in Sections 25 & 26 that the schedule of establishment of the incumbents who are serving in the post or offices concerned will have to be the subject matter of the process envisaged in Rule 10 framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act. 36. A mere reading of Rule 10 framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act would indicate that the pay and emoluments in cash and in kind of each officer and servant should be in accordance with a schedule of establishment framed by the trustee and approved by the Area Committee, in the case of institutions coming under the jurisdiction of Area Committee and by the Commissioner in the case of other institutions and that the trustee shall not alter the schedule without previous permission of the Area Committee or the Commissioner, as the case may be. The schedule of establishment envisaged in Rule 10 is in regard to the actual pay and emoluments to be given to the various officers and servants in the service of the temple/devaswom concerned. 37. Hence, it can be seen that the statutory register envisaged in Section 25 read with Section 26 and the schedule of establishment envisaged in Rule 10 framed under Section 100(2)(y) are two different documents. The names of the various offices and posts concerned should be the subject matter of the register framed under Section 25(1)(c) and the details of the pay and emoluments to be given to the various incumbent officials and servants of the temple occupying the offices and posts concerned should be included in the schedule prepared under Rule 10. 38. Hence a combined reading of Section 25 read with Section 26 along with Rule 10 framed under Section 100(2)(y) would lead to a situation that the post or offices concerned to which appointments are to be made should be the subject matter of the statutory register in terms of Sections 25 & 26 and the actual details of the pay and emoluments to be given to the various individual incumbents who are the officials and servants holding the various posts or offices, should be the subject matter of the schedule of establishment referred to in Rule 10. 39. In the light of the abovesaid discussion we are of the firm view that in the matter of creation of fresh posts, necessarily the temple trustee will have to obtain the approval of the Commissioner in terms of the various provisions contained in Section 25 read with Section 26 of the Act. 40. However, as has been held by this Court in a large number of cases, the actual process of appointments to fill-up the vacancies in relation to such sanctioned posts will not require any prior approval of the Commissioner either before such appointments or after the appointment. This is for the simple reason that sole prerogative in making of appointment to available vacancies in sanctioned posts will be vested with the temple trustee going by the mandate contained in Section 48(1) of the Act. The control of such officials and servants of the temple is also vested with the trustee going by the mandate contained in Section 49. 41. The control of such officials and servants of the temple is also vested with the trustee going by the mandate contained in Section 49. 41. It is beyond any dispute that now the Commissioner has already given approval for the creation of the new post in question, to which the writ petitioner has been appointed, and the primary decision in that regard has been taken by the temple trustee and the same has also been approved by the Area Committee and the decision taken by the Commissioner in Exhibit P-4 for approval of the decision to create the fresh post would be in consonance with the statutory scheme envisaged in Section 25 read with Section 26. All the functionaries concerned, namely the temple trustee, the Area Committee and the Commissioner have played their respective statutory roles, which have now resulted in Exhibit P-4 order to the extent the Commissioner has accorded sanction for creation of the fresh post of 'Clerk' in the respondent temple/devaswom concerned. 42. Of course, there is an anomaly in the above process, inasmuch as the actual appointment order given in favour of the writ petitioner as per Exhibit P-2 dated 25.05.2015 is before the Commissioner had accorded approval for the creation of the fresh post as per Exhibit P-4 dated 23.11.2016. 43. After hearing both sides and after meticulous consideration of the various factual aspects based on the pleadings and materials on record, we are inclined to take the view that no serious allegations have been raised in respect of the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner and the appellants herein do not have any case that the writ petitioner is not fit or qualified to hold the post of 'Clerk' in the temple, etc. As a matter of fact, the writ petitioner has been working on daily wages in the temple since 01.06.2011 onwards and it is thereafter that he has been given the appointment order in terms of Exhibit P-2 dated 25.05.2015. Even the appellants herein do not have any case that the functioning of the writ petitioner in the temple is inefficient or that his actual appointment would require any interdiction. 44. Moreover, it is beyond any dispute that the actual process of appointment does not require any approval of the Commissioner either before or after the appointment. Even the appellants herein do not have any case that the functioning of the writ petitioner in the temple is inefficient or that his actual appointment would require any interdiction. 44. Moreover, it is beyond any dispute that the actual process of appointment does not require any approval of the Commissioner either before or after the appointment. The only lacuna in this case is that the actual process of appointment as per Exhibit P-2 rendered on 25.05.2015 by the temple trustee is before the Commissioner has given approval for the creation of the fresh post in terms of Exhibit P-4 dated 23.11.2016. 45. We are of the view that the other directions given by the Commissioner in Exhibit P-4 that fresh selection should be made to fill-up the newly created post, etc., and thereby implying that the service of the writ petitioner should be terminated, etc., would require interdiction. 46. Accordingly, we would uphold Exhibit P-4 dated 23.11.2016 issued by the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board to the extent he has accorded approval to the creation of the fresh post of 'Clerk' in the respondent temple but we would quash Exhibit P-4 to the limited extent it has been directed therein that the temple authorities should conduct fresh selection in respect of the said post. Accordingly we do so. However to rectify the above lacuna, it is ordered that approval of the creation of the new post as per Exhibit P-4 will be deemed to have been in operation with effect from 30.04.2015. The proposal as per Exhibit P-1 for such approval was given by the Assistant Commissioner to the Commissioner on 13.01.2015 and decision thereon should have been taken by the Commissioner within 2-3 months thereafter and the delay in that regard cannot be countenanced. Further to rectify the aforementioned lacuna that as the approval of the creation of the new post should precede the actual appointment made as per Exhibit P-2 dated 25.05.2015, Exhibit P-4 granting approval will so stand modified, so as to avoid any technical objections. 47. Further to rectify the aforementioned lacuna that as the approval of the creation of the new post should precede the actual appointment made as per Exhibit P-2 dated 25.05.2015, Exhibit P-4 granting approval will so stand modified, so as to avoid any technical objections. 47. However, for the sake of completing the statutory procedural formalities, it is ordered that the temple trustee of the 4th respondent temple, shall be permitted by the appellants to make necessary additions and alterations in the Register as per Section 25(1)(c) read with Rule 26, so that the name of the post sanctioned as per Exhibit P-4 by the Commissioner, its pay scale, perquisites, nature and conditions of service, etc. are duly included in that register forthwith. Further temple trustee of the 4th respondent temple, will also be permitted by the appellants to make necessary additional entries in the schedule of establishment of the temple as per Rule 10 framed under Section 100(2)(y), so that the details of the appointment of the Writ Petitioner to the above post, his name, qualifications, etc., the pay and emoluments and such other details are duly entered in that schedule of establishment of the temple. Further the pay and allowances and other benefits, including any benefits withheld from him if due to the above controversy, but otherwise admissible to him in pursuance of his appointment as per Exhibit P-2 should be disbursed to him, forthwith, if not already paid, by the authorities concerned. 48. In the light of the abovesaid aspects, we are of the view that the findings made in paragraph No.15 of the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2020 in W.P.(C) No.3175/2017 that the power to sanction even a newly created post is with the Area Committee on the basis of the provisions contained in Rule 10 framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act, and also the other findings that the Commissioner does not have the power to approve or sanction a newly created post, etc., does not reflect the correct legal position and hence would stand overruled, to the limited extent, as indicated hereinabove. 49. In the light of these aspects it is ordered that the impugned judgment dated 21.10.2020 rendered in W.P.(C) No.3175/2017 will stand modified as above. With these observations and directions the above writ appeal will stand finally disposed of.