JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. The petitioners who are members of a Varrier family, namely, Thekke Varriam, filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming hereditary Kazhakom rights in the Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple, Irinjalakkuda. 2. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 notification dated 11.10.2023, Ext.P4 revision notification dated 07.02.2023, Ext.P7 order dated 24.02.2025, passed by the 4 th respondent Administrator of Sree Koodalmanikyam Devaswom and Ext.P8 Koodalmankyam Devaswom Employees Regulations 2003 (‘the Regulations 2003’ in short) in so far as the recruitment to the post of Kazhakom in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple. In W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025, in addition to the above reliefs, the petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 4 to consider Ext.P6 representation dated 10.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner to the 4 th respondent Administrator of Sree Koodalmanikyam Devaswom on 10.02.2025 in the light of Ext.P5 objection dated 16.07.2024 submitted by the 6 th respondent to the 2 nd respondent Koodalmanikyam Devaswom Managing Committee along with the opinion of respondents 7 to 12, after hearing the petitioner and respondents 6 to 14 and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court. Since the issues to be decided in these writ petitions are one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The parties and documents are referred in this judgment as they are referred in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025, unless otherwise stated. 3. The pleadings in these writ petitions are almost the same. The petitioners state that they inherited the Kazhakom right in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple, Irinjalakkuda, by birth. According to them, the Kazhakom rights of their family are the integral and inseparable part of the worship of Lord Bharata-Lord Sangameswara, and are religious, spiritual, ritualistic and ceremonial matters pertaining to Devaswom. The petitioners are devotees of Lord Bharata at Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple and persons having interest in the temple as defined in Section 2 (g) of the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Act , 2005 (‘The Act’ in short). Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple is the only ancient temple in India dedicated to the worship of Lord Bharata. 3.1. The secular administration, control and management of Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple vests in the 2 nd respondent Committee, which has been constituted under Section 3 of the Act. Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple is the only ancient temple in India dedicated to the worship of Lord Bharata. 3.1. The secular administration, control and management of Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple vests in the 2 nd respondent Committee, which has been constituted under Section 3 of the Act. The 1 st respondent State constitutes the 2 nd respondent and appoints the 3 rd respondent for the purposes of the Act. The 1 st respondent exercises all pervasive control in the matters of appointment, administration, and functioning of the authorities under the Act, including respondents 2, 3 and 4. The State Government is exercising financial control over respondents 2 to 4 as well as the Devaswom. The 4 th respondent is appointed by the 2 nd respondent in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Act. It is further pleaded by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 that the petitioner is performing Kazhakom (Mala Kazhakom) in the temple since his childhood with his ancestors, and thereafter the same devolved upon him. The Kazhakom right in the temple has been referred to in Ext.P1 partition deed of the petitioner’s family executed as Document No.1421 of 1960 of SRO, Irinjalakkuda, dated 15.11.1960. 3.2. In the year 2003, the mother of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 submitted an application before the 4 th respondent, seeking permission to remove her from the performance of the Kazhakom right of the temple due to her personal and age-related reasons. Pursuant to the said application, the 4 th respondent issued notice calling for objections, if any, in considering the application. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 approached the 4 th respondent, conveying his interest to continue with the performance of Kazhakom right. Considering the same, the 4 th respondent issued Ext.P2 communication dated 07.06.2025, recognising the petitioner’s family rights to perform Kazhakom in the temple and authorising the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 to perform as Kazhakom in the temple. 3.3. The petitioners state that for the proper exercise of their Kazhakom rights, the members of the family had adopted and implemented an internal scheme whereunder the same was permitted to be performed by Araikkal Sharam and Krishna Sharam for 5 months each and 2 months for Thekke Variam. 3.3. The petitioners state that for the proper exercise of their Kazhakom rights, the members of the family had adopted and implemented an internal scheme whereunder the same was permitted to be performed by Araikkal Sharam and Krishna Sharam for 5 months each and 2 months for Thekke Variam. Thereafter, the right to perform Kazhakom for 10 months was permitted to be performed by the Nambeesan Family in the temple, namely, Velookara Pattam and Vadakke Pattam, with 5 months each. Later on, Vadakke Pattam, with the permission of the Thekke Variam, entrusted their duty to Velookara Pattam, and they continued to perform for 10 months. It was during the tenure of Velookara Pattam in the temple, the Kazhakom right for 10 months had been converted to a separate post in the temple service. The petitioners state that the aforementioned Kazhakom right of Thekke Variam from time immemorial in the temple cannot be converted into a separate post. Such conversion is against the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. It is against the provisions of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act , 2015 (‘KDRB Act’ in short). Subsequently, the last member of Velookara Pattam, namely Ramachandran, has retired from service in the year 2020 and thereafter, upon the entrustment of the petitioner’s family, the 4 th respondent appointed the 13 th respondent, who is a person from Vadakke Variam, on a temporary basis with daily wages. Due to some temporary personal arrangements in relation to the performance of the said service by the ancestors and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025, after obtaining permission from Tantris, the families of Velookara Pattam and Vadakke Pattam are permitted to perform Kazhakom for 10 months. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 is ready to serve all these days by doing Kazhakom. From 2020, the 13 th respondent has been entrusted with the performance of Kazhakom is working in the temple for daily wages. The petitioners have all rights to perform as Kazhakom in the temple for 12 months. 3.4. It is the further case of the petitioners that during the COVID-19 pandemic period, pursuant to the appointment of the 13 th respondent, the post was reported to the 5 th respondent, Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (‘KDRB’ in short), and the 5 th respondent initiated proceedings to recruit candidates to the post. 3.4. It is the further case of the petitioners that during the COVID-19 pandemic period, pursuant to the appointment of the 13 th respondent, the post was reported to the 5 th respondent, Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (‘KDRB’ in short), and the 5 th respondent initiated proceedings to recruit candidates to the post. By Ext.P3 notification dated 11.10.2023, the 5 th respondent called for recruiting candidates to the post of Kazhakom in the temple. In Ext.P4 pay revision notification dated 07.02.2023, the petitioner’s Kazhakom rights have been mentioned. The Kazhakom in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple is a hereditary post which cannot be recruited or notified by the KDRB. The petitioners, being the hereditary right holders, have the right to perform the same completely. This Court has declared that a Kazhakom post/hereditary post cannot be notified for recruitment under KDRB. The respondents 2 and 4, without any notice to the petitioners, notified the same to the recruitment by the KDRB. The petitioners came to know about these notifications very belatedly, and by the time, even the examinations were over. 3.5. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 submitted a representation before the 6 th respondent, who is the current nominee among the Tantris in the 2 nd respondent Committee. Respondents 6 to 12 then informed the petitioners that the 6 th respondent submitted Ext.P5 objection dated 16.07.2024 to the 2 nd respondent along with the opinion of respondents 7 to 12. Since Ext.P5 was not considered by the 2 nd respondent, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 submitted Ext.P6 detailed representation to the 4 th respondent on 10.02.2025, seeking appropriate action for withdrawing the decision taken to recruit the Kazhakom post through the 5 th respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 preferred W.P.(C)No.6149 of 2025 before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the 4 th respondent passed Ext.P7 order dated 24.02.2025 appointing the 14 th respondent, who was advised by the 5 th respondent pursuant to Ext.P3 notification. Therefore, the petitioner withdrew W.P.(C)No.6149 of 2025 with liberty to challenge Ext.P7 also and without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner. 3.6. The 2 nd respondent, by exercising the power under Section 2 6(2)(a) of the Act, made Ext.P8 regulations known as the Regulations 2003 with the approval of the 1 st respondent, with effect from 24.12.2003. Therefore, the petitioner withdrew W.P.(C)No.6149 of 2025 with liberty to challenge Ext.P7 also and without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner. 3.6. The 2 nd respondent, by exercising the power under Section 2 6(2)(a) of the Act, made Ext.P8 regulations known as the Regulations 2003 with the approval of the 1 st respondent, with effect from 24.12.2003. As per the Regulations, the Kazhakom right has been bifurcated as Kazhakom (i) - hereditary and Kazhakom (ii) - direct recruitment. The petitioners contended that the very bifurcation of the Kazhakom rights of their family, which are the integral and inseparable parts of the worship of Lord Bharata-Lord Sangameswara as per Ext.P8 and later by Exts.P3, P4 and P7 are arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultravires the Act and Rules and are to be declared so, in so far as the rights of the petitioners’ family - Kazhakom rights in the temple, particularly in view of Ext.P5. With these contentions, the petitioners filed the writ petitions. 4. On 24.03.2025, when W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 3. The learned Standing Counsel for Koodalmanikyam Devaswom Managing Committee took notice for respondents 2 and 4, and the learned Standing Counsel for KDRB took notice for the 5 th respondent. Notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 6 to 14, returnable by next Monday. The learned Standing Counsel for Koodalmanikyam Devaswom Managing Committee and also the learned Standing Counsel for KDRB were directed to get instructions by the next posting date. 5. On 25.03.2025, when the W.P.(C)No.12311 of 2025 came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 3. The learned Standing Counsel for Koodalmanikyam Devaswom Managing Committee entered appearance for respondents 2 and 4, and the learned Standing Counsel for KDRB for the 5 th respondent in that writ petition. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger to respondents 6 to 14 returnable by 01.04.2025 was ordered, and the matter was directed to be listed along with W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025. The special messenger engaged in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 on 24.03.2025 was directed to engage in W.P.(C)No.12311 of 2025 also. 6. On 01.04.2025, when these writ petitions came up for consideration, the learned counsel entered appearance for respondents 8 to 12 in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025. The special messenger engaged in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 on 24.03.2025 was directed to engage in W.P.(C)No.12311 of 2025 also. 6. On 01.04.2025, when these writ petitions came up for consideration, the learned counsel entered appearance for respondents 8 to 12 in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the 14 th respondent in both the writ petitions. Respondents 2, 5 and 8 to 12 were directed to place on record their counter affidavit within four weeks. 7. On 22.04.2025, when these writ petitions came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for Koodalmanikyam Devaswom Board submitted that, until the next posting date, a substitute in the place of the 14 th respondent will not be appointed, and that submission was recorded. We also recorded the submission of the learned Senior Counsel Sri.P.B.Krishnan, instructed by Sri.Subramanian, the learned counsel for respondents 8 to 11 that his client has a right to have been consulted before appointments were made in the post of ‘Mala Kazhakom’ and that it has not been done. 8. On 29.04.2025, this Court extended the interim arrangements recorded on 22.04.2025 till 06.05.2025. On 26.05.2025, as per order in I.A.No.2 of 2025, additional 15 th respondent was impleaded in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 after leaving open the rival contentions. Similarly, by the order in I.A.No.3 of 2025, the additional 16 th respondent was impleaded after leaving open the rival contentions. The undertaking recorded in the order dated 22.04.2025 was extended by two weeks. 9. On 05.06.2025, the 15 th respondent filed a counter affidavit as Bench Mark in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file a reply affidavit. The undertaking recorded in the order dated 22.04.2025 was extended for a further period of two weeks. 10. On 20.06.2025, the status quo as on that day in respect of the post of Kazhakom notified in Ext.P3 notification in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 was directed to be maintained for a period of one week. The said interim order was extended from time to time. 11. Respondents 2 to 4 filed a counter affidavit dated 24.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025, opposing the relief sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Ext.R4(a) document. The said interim order was extended from time to time. 11. Respondents 2 to 4 filed a counter affidavit dated 24.04.2025 in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025, opposing the relief sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Ext.R4(a) document. It is contented by respondents 2 to 4 that after the Act, 1971 was brought into force, the Regulations 2003 were put into effect, governing the service conditions of the employees of the Devaswom. Until 1984, the Kazhakom work in the Temple was carried out by members of the Krishna Pisharam (Kizhakke Pisharam) for 5 (five) months, the Arakkal Pisharam for 5 (five) months and the Thekke Variath for 2 (two) months. However, thereafter, when there were no members of the Krishna Pisharam, and the Arakkal Pisharam to perform the Kazhakom duties, the said duty was entrusted to the Devaswom. 11.1. Respondents 2 to 4 further state that the Managing Committee of the Devaswom appointed one Sri.V.P.Ramachandran, S/o Velookkara Pattath Raman Nambiar, for the Kazakam duties on a temporary basis w.e.f. 22.04.1984, vide order No. A1-284/84 dated 22.04.1984 for a period of 10 months in a year, and for the balance two months, the Kazhakom duty was carried out by members of the Thekke Varriath family. The respondents 2 to 4 state that the senior members of the 1 st Thavazhi Smt.Kavukutty Varassiar, the 2 nd Thavazhi Smt.Madava Varassiar, the 3 rd Thavazhi Smt.Laksmikutty Varassiar, of the Thekke Varriath family informed the Devaswom on 12.12.2003 of their inability to carry out the Kazhakom duties due to ill health and old age. Then the petitioner herein, who is the son of the aforesaid 3 rd Thavazhi member Smt.Laksmikutty Varassiar of the Thekke Varriath submitted a representation on 21.12.2003 expressing his willingness to perform the Kazhakom duties during the Malayalam months of Makarom and Edavom. The Managing Committee of the Devaswom on consideration of his request, appointed the petitioner as per order No.B 69/2003 /K.M.D dated 07.08.2005. 11.2. Respondents 2 to 4 state that the appointment of the afore-mentioned Sri.V.P.Ramachandran was made permanent from 1995 onwards on condition that he would have to carry out duties in the office for the 2 months of Edavom and Makarom. 11.2. Respondents 2 to 4 state that the appointment of the afore-mentioned Sri.V.P.Ramachandran was made permanent from 1995 onwards on condition that he would have to carry out duties in the office for the 2 months of Edavom and Makarom. Till said Sri.V.P.Ramachandran retired on 31.01.2020, neither the petitioner nor anyone from his family Thekke Varriath had put forward any claim on the basis of any hereditary rights of his family or raise any complaint thereof in respect of the 10 months period during which Sri.V.P.Ramachandran was performing as Kazhakom. After the retirement of Sri.V.P.Ramachandran, one Sri.Rajeev Varrier was appointed as Kazhakom with effect from 14.02.2020 on a monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-, and he continued in the said post till 14.05.2020. Thereafter, the hereditary Kazhakom performed the duties in the month of Edavam (15.05.2020 to 14.06.2020). On expiry of the aforesaid period of the hereditary Kazhakom, since the afore named Sri.Rajeev Varrier informed that he is not interested in continuing with the Kazhakom duty, the Managing Committee appointed one Sri.Ranjith Varrier on a temporary basis as Kazhakom for 10 months. Therefore, after the retirement of Sri.V.P.Ramachandran, the Kazhakom duties for 10 months was performed by temporary hands. In such circumstances the vacancy of Kazhakom for the period of 10 months was reported to the 5 th respondent Board vide letter No.KMD1/119/2015(2) dated 03.12.2022 for filling up the vacancy as per the Regulations. Accordingly, the 5 th respondent Board notified the said vacancy as category No.17/2023 by notification dated 11.10.2023, produced as Ext.P3 in the writ petition, inviting applications to the said post. The 5 th respondent Board thereafter conducted a written test and prepared the rank list. The 14 th respondent in the writ petition was advised by the 5 th respondent Board and he was appointed vide Ext.P7 proceedings of the 4 th respondent Administrator, from the rank list to work as Kazhakom for 10 months and thereafter to work in the Devaswom office during the 2 (two) months of Makaram and Edavam when the hereditary Kazhakom assumes duty. 11.3. As per Ext.P8 Regulations there are two posts of Kazhakom in the Devaswom, such as Kazhakom Hereditary and Kazhakom Direct recruitment. 11.3. As per Ext.P8 Regulations there are two posts of Kazhakom in the Devaswom, such as Kazhakom Hereditary and Kazhakom Direct recruitment. Even in the pay revision order dated 07.02.2023 for the employees of the Devaswom, produced as Ext.P4 by the writ petitioner, there are two posts of Kazhakom mentioned, one as hereditary from the Thekke Varriyam for 2 months and the other by direct recruitment for 10 months. The scale of pay applicable to the hereditary post is also clearly provided in Ext.P4 proceedings. When there were no members from the Krishna Pisharam (Kizhakke Pisharam) and Arakkal Pisharam to function as Kazhakom and there was no one from the Thekke Variyam who had offered to work as hereditary Kazhakom, the Devaswom had appointed the aforementioned Sri.V.P.Ramachandran as Kazhakom for the 10 months period of Kizhakke Pisharam and Krishna Pisharam. It is pertinent to note that no one from the Thekke Variyam had put up a claim for this period at any point of time. However, the Thekke Variyam is paid a special batta for the said period of 10 months. The petitioner as well as his predecessors were working as Kazhakom only for 2 months in a year as aforesaid. Even while reporting the vacancy to the 5 th respondent Board, the two months period to which the hereditary members are entitled has not been included, and therefore it was not necessary to put the petitioner on notice regarding the recruitment to the vacancy for the 10 months period. The notification was published in the newspapers by the 5 th respondent Board and the aforementioned Sri. Ranjith Varrier who was functioning as Kazhakom on a temporary basis had also applied in response to the notification issued by the 5 th respondent Board and was included in the rank list. The petitioners cannot feign ignorance of the fact that the Regulation provided for appointment of Kazhakom by direct recruitment as also from among the hereditary family, specifically setting apart the period during which each of these two categories could perform the Kazhakom duties. The members of the Thekke Variath had always adhered to this two month period. The notification was also given wide publication by the 5 th respondent Board. The members of the Thekke Variath had always adhered to this two month period. The notification was also given wide publication by the 5 th respondent Board. As regards the letter submitted by the respondent Tantries, Exhibit R4(a) reply dated 23.08.2024 was issued specifically mentioning that the Managing Committee can do nothing further in the matter as the recruitment is carried out by the 5 th respondent Board. 11.4. It is the further contention of respondents 2 to 4 that even prior to 50 years, the Kazhakom duties of the Temple was carried out by three families apportioning between them as 5 months each for Kizhakke Pisharam and the Krishna Pisharam and 2 months for Thekke Variyam, and the contention of the petitioner that the rights or claim of his family has been taken away or reduced is totally incorrect. Even at the time when the Regulations were put into effect, the Thekke Variyam was doing the Kazhakom work for two Malayalam months in a year. From 1984, for the rest of the 10 months, the Kazhakom duties were done by Sri.V.P.Ramachandran, appointed by the Devaswom. It is further understood that the petitioner had secured service under the State Government had availed leave for taking up employment abroad. The statement in the writ petition that the petitioner has been doing the Kazhakom duties since childhood is not correct. The petitioner assumed duties as Kazhakom only after the Managing Committee of the Devaswom, on consideration of his request, appointed the petitioner as per order No.B 69/2003 /K.M.D dated 07.08.2005, after the senior members of the three thavazhies of the Thekke Variath family expressed their inability to continue with the Kazhakom duty due to age related problems, as already mentioned in the preceding para of this counter affidavit. This position is admitted by the petitioner in the writ petition. This position is admitted by the petitioner in the writ petition. In answer to the further statement in Paragraph 4 of the writ petition that the appointment order does not mention any dichotomy in kazhakom in the Temple, it is stated in the counter affidavit that there was no necessity to mention any such matters in the order as the petitioner was well aware of the fact that his mother was performing the Kazhakom only for two Malayalam months in a year, as member of the Thekke Varriam to which alone he could be appointed as there was already one person working as Kazhakom for the 10 months period. The statements in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition are concerning the arrangement between the families mentioned therein, about which the Devaswom had never been put on notice. The Thekke Variam had never held any exclusive right to function as Kazhakom, and there were three families, as mentioned earlier including the petitioner’s family, that were performing as Kazhakom. The Thekke Varriam, the petitioner’s family had performed as Kazhakom only for two Malayalam months. Even after issuance of the appointment order to the petitioner, after his mother had ceased to take up Kazhakom duties due to old age, he had performed as Kazhakom only for the two malayalam months without any objection and had acquiesced in the position as the family had always been doing the Kazhakom duties only during these two months. Therefore, action taken on the basis of the Regulations is saved under the above provisions nor is there any inconsistency with the provisions of the Act, 2005. In the circumstances the various grounds raised are also not legally sustainable. The petitioner and his family members have acquiesced and accepted the position that, as hereditary, they are entitled for the two Malayalam months as Kazhakom and the claim now raised belatedly is not legally sustainable. 11.5. The 14 th respondent has resigned from the post of Kazhakom, and the 5 th respondent Board has already advised one Sri.K.S. Anurag from the rank list for appointment as Kazhakom. It is thereafter the petitioners have moved I.A.No.1/2025 before the vacation Bench of this Court seeking stay of the appointment of Sri.K.S. Anurag without impleading the said candidate. 11.5. The 14 th respondent has resigned from the post of Kazhakom, and the 5 th respondent Board has already advised one Sri.K.S. Anurag from the rank list for appointment as Kazhakom. It is thereafter the petitioners have moved I.A.No.1/2025 before the vacation Bench of this Court seeking stay of the appointment of Sri.K.S. Anurag without impleading the said candidate. The statement and contentions raised in the present counter affidavit would make it sufficiently clear that neither the petitioner nor his family have raised any objection when persons outside his family were appointed as Kazhakom for the 10 Malayalam months nor had they raised any claim at any point of time that they are entitled to be appointed or function as Kazhakom to the exclusion of all others. The writ petition is highly belated, and the attempt of the petitioner is only to secure rights which they never had or are entitled to, by recourse to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is also bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. With these contentions, respondents 2 to 4 requested dismissal of the writ petition. 12. To the counter affidavit of respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.8588 of 2025 filed a reply affidavit dated 28.04.2025, producing therewith Exts.P9 and P10 documents. In that reply affidavit, the petitioner maintained the very same stand that was taken in the writ petition and further pleaded that, insofar as the performance of Kazhakom rights is concerned, it is governed by ceremonial rules and regulations that are special to the temple. Strict adherence to those rules is essential and imperative for the maintenance of “Chaithanyam” of the deity, and any deviation would entail violation of “Thantrik” Rules, which in turn require “Pariharakriyas”. In fact, the 4 th respondent had, by a communication dated 24.12.2020, addressed to Sri.V.P.Ramachandran, the person who has been referred to in the counter affidavit, emphasised the need and necessity for strictly complying with the rules in the performance of Kazhakom Rights. 13. The petitioner further contended in the reply affidavit that it was with the concurrence of Thekke Varriam, Sri.V.P.Ramachandran was appointed. The payment of special batta to Thekke Varriam for the period of ten months is in recognition of its absolute, exclusive and unconditional Kazhakom right and is not a bounty or gift. 14. 13. The petitioner further contended in the reply affidavit that it was with the concurrence of Thekke Varriam, Sri.V.P.Ramachandran was appointed. The payment of special batta to Thekke Varriam for the period of ten months is in recognition of its absolute, exclusive and unconditional Kazhakom right and is not a bounty or gift. 14. Respondents 8 to 11 filed a counter affidavit dated 26.04.2025, completely supporting the pleadings in the writ petition. 15. The 5 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 28.04.2025 explaining the circumstances under which the post was notified and the selection process was conducted by the 5 th respondent. The contentions of the 5 th respondent are similar to that of the contentions of respondents 2 to 4. 16. The 16 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 30.05.2025, opposing the relief sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R16(g) to R16(k) documents. The 16 th respondent denied all the averments in in the writ petition and inter alia contended that petitioner is appointed as Kazhakom hereditary as per Ext.P2 on the basis of Ext.P8 staff regulation and petitioner is drawing the salary as fixed in Ext.P4 pay revision order. Hence, the petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate, and the petitioner is estopped by his conduct from challenging Ext.P4, P7 and P8 orders. The petitioner, being the holder of the office of Kazhakom (hereditary) for two months, is the beneficiary of Ext.P4 pay revision order and Ext.P8 regulation. In the counter affidavit, the 16 th respondent reiterated the contentions of respondents 2 to 4 and further stated that at the time of appointment of Shri.V.P.Ramachandran as Malakazhakom in the year 1984, no consent or opinion of the Tantri was sought for since the said post is a direct recruitment post. While appointing Ramachandran as MalaKazhakom by direct recruitment, the aforesaid post was treated as a direct recruitment post and not a karanma post. Moreover, neither the opinion nor the sanction of any person, including the Tantri was obtained while making such appointment. The post of MalaKazhakom direct recruitment for ten months every year is not a Karaima post and is not treated as Karaima post at least for the past 40 to 50 years, and MalaKazhakom is a secular post. 17. The 15 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 03.06.2025, opposing the relief sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R15F to R15G documents. 17. The 15 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 03.06.2025, opposing the relief sought in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R15F to R15G documents. In that counter affidavit also the stand of the contesting respondents is reiterated. 18. The 12 th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 05.05.2025 and an additional counter affidavit dated 08.05.2025, supporting the pleadings in the writ petition. 19. To these counter affidavits, the petitioner filed reply affidavits dated 03.06.2025, 13.06.2025 and 18.06.2025, reiterating the pleadings in the writ petition and answering the contentions raised in the counter affidavits of the respondents. 20. In W.P.(C)No.12311 of 2025, the respondents, who have filed counter affidavits in W.P(C)No.8588 of 2025, adopted the very same counter affidavits. 21. Heard the learned counsel or the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel for the 16 th respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for the 12 th respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for Koodalmanikyam Devaswom, the learned counsel for respondents 8 to 11, the learned counsel for the 15 th respondent, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for Devaswom Recruitment Board. 22. The learned counsel and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties to these writ petitions addressed extensive arguments and also filed notes of arguments reiterating their respective contentions in the writ petitions. The crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Kazahakam right in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple, Irinjalakkuda, is the hereditary right of Thekke Varriam, the family of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the function of Kazhakom is a religious one and not a secular act. Therefore, basing upon the various provisions under the Act, the appointment to the post of Kazhakom has to be done by the Managing Committee of Koodalmanikyam Devaswom with the concurrence of the Tantri or in other words the selection to the post of Kazhakom shall be made by a Committee, wherein Tantri is one of the member. It is also the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the appointment made to the post of Kazhakom till Ext.P3 notification was with the concurrence of the family of the petitioners. It is also the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the appointment made to the post of Kazhakom till Ext.P3 notification was with the concurrence of the family of the petitioners. The division of duties initially as two months for the family of the petitioners and then for the remaining ten months to the other two families, such as initially Araikal Sharam and Krishna Sharam and then as Velookkara Pattam and Vadakke Pattam, was with the permission of the family of the petitioners. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as far as religious matters of the temple is concerned, the opinion of the Tantri is final. 23. On the other hand, the crux of the arguments of the contesting respondents is that for the last several years, the Kazhakom in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple was performed by the family of the petitioners only for two months. It is the hereditary right of the family of the petitioners. However, for the remaining ten months, the appointment was made by the Managing Committee of the Temple, and it is not the hereditary right of the family of the petitioners. The arguments of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Senior Government Pleader are that there are two posts of Kazhakom in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple. The one is a hereditary post for a period of two months performed by the family of petitioners, namely Thekke Varriam and the remaining ten months by the person appointed by the Managing Committee. It is recognising these two separate posts, Ext.P3 notification was issued by the 5 th respondent KDRB. It is also the stand of the respondents that the duties to be performed by the Kazhakom are not a religious one, and on the other hand, it is only a secular act. Therefore, by relying on the provisions of the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Act , the petitioners cannot claim that the appointment to the post of Kazhakom shall be done only with the concurrence of the Tantri. 24. The stand of the petitioners regarding the hereditary right and the right to make appointments to the post of Kazhakom, and also the contentions that there is only one post of Kazhakom in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple, is supported by the 12 th respondent. 25. 24. The stand of the petitioners regarding the hereditary right and the right to make appointments to the post of Kazhakom, and also the contentions that there is only one post of Kazhakom in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple, is supported by the 12 th respondent. 25. On the basis of the rival contentions raised by the parties in their pleadings as well as from the submission made at the Bar, the issues that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are; (1) whether the function of Kazhakom in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple is a religious act as contended by the petitioners and the supporting respondents or a secular act as contended by the contesting respondents. (2) Whether there is two posts of Kazhakom, such as Kazhakom hereditary and Kazhakom direct recruitment in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple; and if so, whether an appointment can be made to the post by Ext.P3 notification issued by KDRB, under the provisions of Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act , 2015?. 26. The Koodalmanickam Devaswom Act , 2005 was enacted to provide better management of Devaswom in supersession of all previous laws and arrangements applicable thereto. The Koodalmanickam Temple at Irinjalakkuda is an ancient Temple of unique importance, having extensive properties and endowments under the Proclamation issued by the Maharaja of Cochin on 30.11.1917, and as per the Scheme of Administration issued under that Proclamation, the administration, control and management of the Devaswom had been vested in the Thachudaya Kaimal. The said administration and management by the Thachudaya Kaimal had deteriorated the Devaswom, and a situation had arisen rendering it expedient to reorganise, the Scheme of Administration of the affairs of the Devaswom in the public interest. It was in that background, the Act was enacted. 27. As per Section 3 (1) of the Act, the administration, control and management of the Devaswom shall be vested in a Committee constituted in the manner provided in the Act. As per Section 3 (2) of the Act, the Committee shall be known by the name “Koodalmanickam Devaswom Managing Committee” and shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal and shall by the said name sue and be sued through the Administrator. The composition of the Committee is provided under Section 4 of the Act. The duties of the Committee is provided under Section 10 of the Act, which reads thus: “ 10. The composition of the Committee is provided under Section 4 of the Act. The duties of the Committee is provided under Section 10 of the Act, which reads thus: “ 10. Duties of Committee.-- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, it shall be the duty of the Committee,- (a) subject to the custom and usage in the Temple, to arrange for the proper performance of the rites and ceremonies in the Temple and the subordinate temples attached thereto in accordance with pathivu or scale of expenditure fixed for the Temple and the subordinate temples under section 20 or, till the pathivu or scale of expenditure is fixed under that section in accordance with the pathivu or scale of expenditure specified in Schedule 1 of the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Act , 1971 (7 of 1971); (b) to provide facilities to the worshippers for the proper performance or worship; (c) to ensure the safe custody of the funds, valuable securities and jewellery and the preservation and management of the properties vested in the Temple; (d) to ensure maintenance of order and discipline and proper hygienic conditions in the temple and the subordinate temples attached thereto and to maintain the proper standard of cleanliness and purity in the offerings performed within the temple; (e) to ensure that the funds of the endowments of the temple are spent according to the known wishes of the donors; (f) to make provisions for the payment of suitable emoluments to the salaries staff of the Devaswom; (g) to do all such things as may be incidental and conductive to the efficient management of the affairs of the Devaswom and for the facilities of the worshippers.” 28. Section 19 of the Act deals with the appointment of officers and employees. The said Section reads thus: “ 19. Appointment of officers and employees.- (1) Appointment of all officers and other employees of the Devaswom shall be made by the Committee. (2) Ten per cent of the posts in each grade of the officers and other employees of the Devaswom in the entry cadre shall be reserved for the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, of which one-fifth shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. (2) Ten per cent of the posts in each grade of the officers and other employees of the Devaswom in the entry cadre shall be reserved for the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, of which one-fifth shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. (3) Selection of officers and other employees of the Devaswom may be made by sub-committees constituted by the Committee from among its members: Provided that selection of employees to be in charge of the rituals and other ceremonies of the Temple shall not be made by any sub-committee of which the Tantri of the Temple is not a member. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) the procedure for the selection and appointment of officers and other employees of the Devaswom shall be determined by the Committee in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf.” 29. There is a saving clause provided under Section 34 of the Act, which says that nothing in the Act shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, affect any honour, emolument or perquisite to which any person is entitled by custom or otherwise from or in the Devaswom or its established usage in regard to any other matter. Section 35 of the Act says that Tantri to be the final authority in religious matters. The said Section reads thus: “ 35. Thantri to be final authority in religious matters.- (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorise the Committee or the Commissioner or the Government to interfere with the religious or spiritual matters pertaining to the Devaswom. (2) The decision of the Thantri of the Temple on all religious, spiritual, ritual or ceremonial matters pertaining to the Devaswom shall be final. unless such decision violates any provision contained in any law for the time being in force.” 30. Section 39 of the Act deals with repeal and saving of the previous Act, namely, the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Proclamation issued on 30.11.1917 and the Scheme of Administration published thereunder. The said Section reads thus: “ 39. Repeal and saving.. unless such decision violates any provision contained in any law for the time being in force.” 30. Section 39 of the Act deals with repeal and saving of the previous Act, namely, the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Proclamation issued on 30.11.1917 and the Scheme of Administration published thereunder. The said Section reads thus: “ 39. Repeal and saving.. (1) The Koodalmanickam Devaswom Proclamation (Cochin) issued on the 30 th day of November 1917, and the Scheme of Administration published thereunder, the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Proclamation (Travancore) issued on the 12 th day of June, 1919, the Koodalmanickom Devaswom Act, 1918 (Madras Act 1 of 1919) and the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Act , 1971 (7 of 1971), are hereby repealed. (2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Act . 1971 (7 of 1971).- (a) the pathivu or annual scale of expenditure specified in Schedule 1 of the said Act shall continue to apply to Devaswom till the pathivu or scale of expenditure is fixed under section 20: and (b) all orders passed or purported to have been passed, decisions made or purported to have been made, proceedings or actions taken or purported to have been taken and things done or purported to have been done by the Koodalmanickam Devaswom Managing Committee or the Administrator or the Commissioner under the said Act shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been passed, made taken or done by the appropriate authority under this Act, as if this Act were in force on the date on which such orders, decisions, proceedings actions and things were passed made taken or done or purported to have been passed, made, taken or done.” 31. In exercise of the power under Section 36 of the Act, Koodalmanikyam Devaswom Rules, 2008, was also enacted by the Government, which was published in the Gazette as S.R.O. No.84/71 Extra Ordinary No.147 dated 09.03.1971. Rule 6 of those Rules provides that the Committee shall not alter or cause to alter the observance of religious practices, the performance of the customary rites and religious ceremonies in the Temple. 32. Rule 6 of those Rules provides that the Committee shall not alter or cause to alter the observance of religious practices, the performance of the customary rites and religious ceremonies in the Temple. 32. In Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta [ (2004) 12 SCC 770 ] , the Apex Court, by referring to a Constitution Bench judgment in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [AIR 1954 SC 282] held that the essential part of a religion means the core beliefs upon which a religion is founded. Essential practice means those practices that are fundamental to follow a religious belief. It is upon the cornerstone of essential parts or practices the superstructure of religion is built. Without which, a religion will be no religion. The test to determine whether a part or practice is essential to the religion is to find out whether the nature of religion will be changed without that part or practice. If the taking away of that part or practice could result in a fundamental change in the character of that religion or in it’s belief, then such part could be treated as an essential or integral part. There cannot be additions or subtractions to such parts. Because it is the very essence of that religion, and alterations will change it’s fundamental character. Such permanent essential parts is what is protected by the Constitution. Nobody can say that an essential part or practice of one’s religion has changed from a particular date or by an event. Such alterable parts or practices are definitely not the core of religion, where the belief is based and religion is founded upon. It could only be treated as mere embellishments to the non-essential part or practices. 33. In SSTS Saheb v. State of Bombay [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 496] and Seshammal v. State of Tamilnadu [(1972) 2 SCC 11] , the Apex Court reiterated the principles stated in Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar [ AIR 1954 SC 282 ] and held that those aspects are to be looked into to determine whether a particular practice really constitutes an essential part of religion or religious practice and is essential or not. 34. 34. In N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ (2002) 8 SCC 106 ] , the Apex Court held that where a temple has been constructed and consecrated as per agamas, it is considered necessary to perform the daily rituals, poojas and recitations as required to maintain the sanctity of the idol and it is not that in respect of any and every temple any such uniform rigour of rituals can be sought to be enforced, dehors its origin, the manner of construction or method of consecration. No doubt, only a qualified person well versed and properly trained for the purpose alone can perform poojas in the temple since he has not only to enter into the sanctum sanctorum but also touch the idol installed therein. It therefore goes without saying that what is required and expected of one to perform the rituals and conduct poojas is to know the rituals to be performed and mantras, the necessary, to be recited for the particular deity and the method of worship ordained or fixed therefore. 35. A Division Bench of this Court in Vishnunarayanan v. Secretary, Department of Revenue and Devaswom [2024 (2) KHC SN 10] elaborately considered the need to protect and preserve the religious ceremonies and rites in Temples. Paragraph 33.11 of that judgment reads thus: "33.11. In Sri Venkataramana Devaru [ AIR 1958 SC 255 ] the Apex Court noticed that the precise connotation of the expression ’matters of religion’ came up for consideration by that Court in Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [1954 SCR 1005] and it was held therein that it embraced not merely matters of doctrine and belief pertaining to the religion but also the practice of it, or to put it in terms of Hindu theology, not merely its ’Gnana’ but also its ’Bhakti’ and ’Karma Kandas’. In that decision, Mukherjea, J., (as he then was) observed that, in the first place, what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself. In that decision, Mukherjea, J., (as he then was) observed that, in the first place, what constitutes the essential part of a religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the doctrines of that religion itself. If the tenets of any religious sect of the Hindus prescribe that offerings of food should be given to the idol at particular hours of the day, that periodical ceremonies should be performed in a certain way at certain periods of the year or that there should be a daily recital of sacred texts or oblations to the sacred fire, all these would be regarded as parts of religion and the mere fact that they involve an expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or the use of marketable commodities would not make them secular activities partaking of a commercial or economic character; all of them are religious practices and should be regarded as matters of religion within the meaning of Art.26(b)." 36. It is thus obvious that where a temple has been constructed and consecrated as per agamas, it is considered necessary to perform the daily rituals, poojas and recitations as required to maintain the sanctity of the idol. What is required and expected for a particular Deity is to perform the rituals and conduct poojas according to the method of worship ordained or fixed therefore. In Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta [ (2004) 12 SCC 770 ] the Apex Court held that the protection guaranteed under Article 25 and Article 26 of the Constitution is not confined to matters of doctrine or belief but extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore, contains a guarantee for rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are essential or integral part of religion. What constitutes an integral or essential part of religion has to be determined with reference to it’s doctrines, practices, tenets, historical background, etc. of the given religion. 37. Concerning the obligation to preserve the religious practices of all religions and the corresponding duties, the Apex Court in Sarika v. Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee [ (2018) 17 SCC 112 ] noticed that there is a pious purpose of all the religious activities. No religion breeds hatred. of the given religion. 37. Concerning the obligation to preserve the religious practices of all religions and the corresponding duties, the Apex Court in Sarika v. Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee [ (2018) 17 SCC 112 ] noticed that there is a pious purpose of all the religious activities. No religion breeds hatred. It is in order to bring harmony and to understand basic human values, and for self-realisation and to visualise the concept of equality of pilgrimages by the various sections of people of various religions. Secularism is the basic structure of the Constitution that has to be given the meaning that is developing understanding and respect towards different religions. The essence of secularism is non- discrimination of people by the State on the basis of religious differences. 38. In Sarika [ (2018) 17 SCC 112 ] the Apex Court noticed that there is a constitutional obligation to preserve the religious practices of all religions, culture and there is also a corresponding duty to act in that direction. The Apex Court held that it is for the experts in the field of religion to decide about the rituals and ceremonies to be performed. It is not for the Court to make suggestions in this regard. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Court to dictate or prescribe or restrain the religious practices and pujas to be performed in the temple. The religious practices and pujas are required to be performed in accordance with the ancient rituals and practices. Paragraphs 44 and 45 of that decision read thus; "44. With respect to the method of “lingarchan” i.e., the method of linga pooja, the 27th chapter of “Ling Mahapuranm” has been placed on record. That contains a detailed method of lingarchan running into 54 strotam. Apart from that “Shiv Mahapuranam”, Vayveey Sanhita containing details of Shastrokt Shiv Poojan method in twenty-forth chapter has been placed on record. Pooja of different lingam may be somewhat different. It is for the experts in the field of religion to decide about the rituals and ceremonies to be performed. It is not for this Court to make suggestions in this regard. 45. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to dictate or to prescribe or restrain the religious practices and pujas to be performed in temple. It is for the experts in the field of religion to decide about the rituals and ceremonies to be performed. It is not for this Court to make suggestions in this regard. 45. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to dictate or to prescribe or restrain the religious practices and pujas to be performed in temple. They are required to be performed, as rightly pointed out, in accordance with the ancient rituals and practices but, at the same time, it has to be ensured that no damage is caused to the lingam. The temple which is known as Mritunjaya Mahadev and is most ancient Jyotirlingam in one of the ancient cities of India, Ujjain. “Simhast” is also organised 6 years and 12 years which has international importance visited by several millions of people. The Government spends thousands of crores of rupees for development of infrastructure in Ujjain for each such occasion and lot of development has taken place. Owing to all these development work, Ujjain has come up. But at the same time very cause of all developments, the Lingam of Lord Shiva requires to be preserved, protected by way of preventive conservation methods.” (underline supplied) 39. In Suo motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (3) KHC 1] the question before this Court was as to whether the Cochin Devaswom Board could intervene and decide either to discontinue or modify a religious practice prevailing in a Temple under its administrative control. While answering that question in the negative, this Court recalled the observations in Sarika [ (2018) 17 SCC 112 ]. 40. In Gopalakrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala [(2005) 11 SCC 45] , the Apex Court affirmed the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in Gopalakrishnan Nair [(1999) 3 KLT 574] . In paragraph 21 of the said decision, the Apex Court noticed that the management or administration of a temple partakes of a secular character as opposed to religious aspects of the matter. The Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, segregates the religious matter from secular matters. So far as religious matters are concerned, the same are entirely been left in the hands of the ‘Tantri’. He is the alter ego of the deity. He gives the moola mantra to the priest. He holds a special status. He prescribes the rituals. The Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978, segregates the religious matter from secular matters. So far as religious matters are concerned, the same are entirely been left in the hands of the ‘Tantri’. He is the alter ego of the deity. He gives the moola mantra to the priest. He holds a special status. He prescribes the rituals. He is the only person who can touch the deity and enter the sanctum sanctorum. He is the final authority in religious matters. Wherefore, a legal fiction has been created in Section 3 5 of the Act, in terms whereof the committee or the commissioner or the Government is expressly prohibited from interfering with the religious or spiritual matters pertaining to the Devaswom. His decision on all religious, spiritual, ritual or ceremonial matters pertaining to the Devaswom is final, unless the same violates any provision contained in any law for the time being in force. The Apex Court noticed that the impugned provision, i.e., Section 4 of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, must be construed, having regard to the said factor in mind. 41. In paragraph 36 of the decision in Gopalakrishnan Nair [ (2005) 11 SCC 45 ] , the Apex Court reiterated that although the State cannot interfere with the freedom of a person to profess, practice and propagate his religion, the secular matters connected therewith can be subject matter of control by the State. The management of the temple is primarily a secular act. The temple authority controls the activities of various servants of the temple. It manages several institutions, including educational institutions pertaining to it. The disciplinary power over the servants of the temple, including the priest, may vest in a committee. The payment of remuneration to the temple servants was also not a religious act but was purely secular in nature. In paragraph 45 of the said decision, on the question as to whether vesting of power in the ‘Hindus’ in the Council of Ministers to nominate the members of the Managing Committee could be held to be violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court noticed that Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple is visited by millions every year. Apart from proper management of the funds flowing from those devotees, the Devaswom also owns other properties, runs a college, a guest house, choultries, etc., all of which require efficient and prompt management. Apart from proper management of the funds flowing from those devotees, the Devaswom also owns other properties, runs a college, a guest house, choultries, etc., all of which require efficient and prompt management. This is quite apart from the spiritual management dealing with the religious side, which is under the sole control, management and guidance of the Tantri. It is the secular aspect of the management that is vested in the Managing Committee. 42. In Aruna Roy v. Union of India [ (2002) 7 SCC 368 ] the Apex Court considered the importance of moral values in religions, and it was observed that religion is the foundation for the value-based survival of human beings in a civilised society. The force and sanction behind civilised society depend on moral values. Religion should not be misunderstood. The secular democracy requires that even a very weak man hopes to prevail over a very strong man on the strength of the rule of law by a proper understanding of duties towards society. 43. In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt [AIR 1954 SC 282] the Apex Court considered the concept of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. It has been observed that it secures to every person, subject to public order, health and morality, a freedom not only to entertain such religious belief, as may be approved of by his judgment and conscience, but also to exhibit his belief in such outward acts as he thinks proper and to propagate or disseminate his ideas for the edification of others. 44. 44. In Srivari Daadaa v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams [Order dated 16.11.2021 in SLP(C)No.6554 of 2021] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the Special Leave Petition was against the judgment dated 05.01.2021 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.(PIL)No.254 of 2020, whereby the High Court dismissed that writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams in following the irregular procedure in performing Sevas to Lord Shri Venkateshwara Swamy contrary to the procedure prescribed under ‘Agama Shastra’ and deciding not to obtain declaration form from devotees other than Hindus as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondent to follow the correct procedure prescribed under ‘Agama Shastra’ while performing the Sevas to Lord Shri Venkateshwara Swamy and obtain declaration form from the devotees other than Hindus before making Darshan. After considering the rival submissions, the Apex Court noticed that the reliefs sought by the petitioner, who appeared in person, are in the nature of interfering with the day-to-day rituals in respect of the temple, which cannot be gone into by the Court. 45. In Srivari Daadaa (supra) the Apex Court held that whether any ritual or sewa is being performed in a prescribed way or whether there is any deviation from established practice would raise disputed questions of fact which cannot be decided in a writ petition. The procedure of conducting rituals is in the exclusive domain of the Devasthanam and cannot be a matter of adjudication by any court unless it affects the secular or civil rights of others. These issues have to be looked into by the pandits or the scholars, or the advisors in accordance with the temple customs or the established practice and procedure. These are not the issues for which the Court possesses expertise. So, if the Sevas, Utsavams and Darshanams in the temple are not being done according to the set principles, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the civil court or the competent authority and prove his claims with evidence, and it is for the respondent- Devasthanam to defend the same in accordance with law. At the same time, other than rituals, if the Devasthanam is ignoring the rules and regulations or indulging in any other violation of the prescribed procedure, etc., then the respondent Devasthanam can consider these issues and clarify the same. 46. At the same time, other than rituals, if the Devasthanam is ignoring the rules and regulations or indulging in any other violation of the prescribed procedure, etc., then the respondent Devasthanam can consider these issues and clarify the same. 46. In Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (3) KLT 53] a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, was dealing with a case in which the issue raised was one relating to the performance of ’Panthrandu Namaskaram’ in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura, which is under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board. The Division Bench held that in view of the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, notwithstanding the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 62, the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple at Thripunithura shall continue to be exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin. Similarly, in view of the provisions under Section 73A of the Act, it shall be the duty of the Cochin Devaswom Board to see that regular traditional rites according to practice prevalent in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple are performed promptly. Therefore, no interference with the religious rites, namely, ’Panthrandu Namaskaram’ performed in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, by the Tantri is legally permissible either by the Cochin Devaswom Board or by the State. As held by the Apex Court in Sarika [ (2018) 17 SCC 112 ] , there is a constitutional obligation to preserve the religious practices of all religions, and there is also a corresponding duty to act in that direction. The religious practices and pujas are required to be performed in accordance with the ancient rituals and practices, and it is not for the Cochin Devaswom Board or the State to interfere with such practices. In that view of the matter, even the decision taken by the Cochin Devaswom Board to change the name of the ritual as ’Samaradhana’ is legally unsustainable. 47. The KDRB Act, 2015 was enacted with effect from 01.03.2014 for the constitution of an autonomous Devaswom Recruitment Board for preparing select list of candidates for the appointments in various posts other than hereditary posts and the posts in aided educational institutions in Devaswom Boards of the State of Kerala for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 48. 47. The KDRB Act, 2015 was enacted with effect from 01.03.2014 for the constitution of an autonomous Devaswom Recruitment Board for preparing select list of candidates for the appointments in various posts other than hereditary posts and the posts in aided educational institutions in Devaswom Boards of the State of Kerala for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 48. As per Section 2 (e) of the KDRB Act, ‘hereditary posts’ means such posts as may be prescribed by the rules made under the said Act. The constitution of the Board is dealt with under Chapter II of the KDRB Act. Chapter III of the KDRB Act deals with the functions and powers of the Board. As per Section 9 of the KDRB Act, the Board is authorised to prepare the select list for the appointment of candidates to various posts, by inviting applications, conducting written examination or interview or written examination and interview, other than the hereditary posts and posts in the aided educational institutions in the Devaswom Boards, as per the provisions of the said Act. 49. In exercise of power to make rules as provided under Section 18 of the KDRB Act, the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Rules, 2015 (‘KDRB Rules’ for short) was also enacted by the Government. As per Rule 2(e) of the Rules, ‘hereditary posts’ means the hereditary post held in accordance with customary practices followed in temples coming under the Travancore Devaswom Board, Cochin Devaswom Board, Malabar Devaswom Board, Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee, Koodalmanickam Devaswom Managing Committee respectively constituted under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951, Guruvyoor Devaswom Act, 1978 and Koodalmanickam Devaswom Act , 2005, which includes the posts mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Rules. As per Rule 3(1), the Board shall have the power to prepare select list for the appointment of candidates in various posts except hereditary posts coming under the various Devaswom Boards and the Managing Committees. As per Rule 3(2), in all cases of direct recruitment, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Ordinance, the Rules of reservation and rotation as provided in Rules (14 to 17) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules 1958 shall mutatis mutandis apply. As per Rule 3(2), in all cases of direct recruitment, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Ordinance, the Rules of reservation and rotation as provided in Rules (14 to 17) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules 1958 shall mutatis mutandis apply. By the Provisos provided to this Rule, the posts reserved in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, for the non-Hindu backward communities are divided among Hindu communities as shown in the table provided therein. As per Schedule 1, showing the hereditary posts in Devaswom Boards stated in Rule 3 of the KDRB Rules, in Koodalmanickam Devaswom, there are 6 posts are shown as hereditary posts, such as 1. Shanti (Karaima), 2. Kazhakom (Karaima) 3. Sambandhi (Karaima), 4. Temple Sweepers (Adichu Thali), 5. Vadyakkar and 6. Shankuvili and such other employees doing similar work in the temple. 50. From the pleadings in the writ petition, we notice that according to the petitioners, initially, there was only one Kazhakom post or in other words, the family of the petitioners alone was performing Kazhakom in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple. Subsequently, this Kazhakom to be performed in the whole year was divided into three parts. Five months each in a year was performed by Araikkal Sharam and Krishna Sharam, and the remaining two months by Thekke Varriam, the family of the petitioners. This period performed by Araikkal Sharam and Krishna Sharam was then performed by Vellookara Pattam and Vadakke Pattam, and thus for a period of ten months, those families performed Kazhakom right, and the remaining two months continued with Thekke Varriam. It is the contention of the petitioners that the 10 months performed by Vellookkara Pattam and Vadakke Pattam were with the permission of the family of the petitioners, and this period was subsequently claimed as a separate Kazhakom right by the Devaswom Managing Committee, and the appointment for which was left to the KDRB, without the concurrence of the family of the petitioners or the Tanthri. 51. In Ext.P3 notification, issued by the KDRB, only one post of Kazhakom is notified. From Ext.P4 Pay Revision Order, we notice that two posts of Kazhakom are included in that Pay Revision Order, wherein two months Kazhakom was held as a hereditary post and the remaining ten months as held as direct recruitment. 51. In Ext.P3 notification, issued by the KDRB, only one post of Kazhakom is notified. From Ext.P4 Pay Revision Order, we notice that two posts of Kazhakom are included in that Pay Revision Order, wherein two months Kazhakom was held as a hereditary post and the remaining ten months as held as direct recruitment. None of the official documents placed on record in these writ petitions recognised two posts of Kazhakom, such as Kazhakom hereditary and Kazhakom direct recruitment, till Ext.P3 notification and Ext.P4 Pay Revision Order. Though even according to the contentions of the respondents, there are two posts of Kazhakom, the duties of Kazhakom were performed only by one person at a time; that is, ten months by a person appointed by direct recruitment and the remaining two months by a member of Thekke Varriam. The person who was doing Kazhakom duties for ten months, has not been doing that duty for the remaining two months. Similarly, the person doing Kazhakom duties for two months has been not doing the duties of the Kazhakom for the remaining ten months. Therefore, in effect, the person doing Kazhakom duties in Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple can only be taken as one person at a time. As noticed above, the bifurcation of the same into two posts was officially recognised in the documents for the first time in Ext.P4 Pay Revision Order, wherein for the remaining ten months, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was ordered to be paid to the hereditary Kazhakom. 52. From the pleadings in the writ petitions and counter affidavits, the disputed question of facts, such as, (1) When was the Kazhakom right originally obtained by the family of the petitioners, (2) whether it was initially for the whole year, (3) when actually it was bifurcated, (4) whether the other two families which were performing Kazhakom right for 10 months had done it with the consent of the petitioners family, (5) whether the family of the petitioners acquiesced the surrendering of Kazhakom right by the other two families to the Kudalmanikyam Devaswom Committee, (6) if the claim of the petitioners are established, whether it is barred by limitation or acquiescence, etc. are to be answered to give a finding on the disputed main issues mentioned in the initial part of this judgment. are to be answered to give a finding on the disputed main issues mentioned in the initial part of this judgment. From the pleadings and materials on record and from the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that those issues are matters of facts which require adducing of detailed evidence. 53. Similarly, the question whether the duties of Kazhakom is religious one or a secular act is also a question of fact that can be decided only by adducing evidence. If the functions of Kazhakom are a religious one, then by relying on Section 19 of the Act, the appointment can be made only by a Committee in which the Tantri of the Temple is a member. Moreover, as noticed hereinabove, as per Section 35 of the Act, and from the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court referred to supra, the Tantri shall be the final authority as far as the religious and spiritual matters concerning a Devaswom. 54. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, as discussed above, we find that the issues arise in these writ petitions are matters of facts that can be decided only by adducing evidence before a Civil Court. It is not an issue that can be decided by a writ court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, without expressing anything about the legal and factual contentions raised by the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of, making it clear that the disputed issues of fact raised in these writ petitions are matters to be decided by a Civil Court. The parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court for the necessary relief in accordance with law. We make it clear that any appointment made to the post of Kazhakom in Koodalmanikyam temple shall be subject to the decision that will be taken by the Civil Court.