Madras High Court Upholds 'Only Hindus' Condition For Appointment In Temple-Run Self-Financing College, Applies Article 16(5)

The Madras High Court recently held that a self-financing institution which is run by a temple would not come within the purview of Article 16(1) and Article 16(2) of the Constitution. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh thus observed that only Hindus would be eligible for appointment in such institutions as it is covered under Article 16(5) of the Constitution. The court highlighted that as per Section 10 of the Hindu religious and Charitable Endowment Act, only a person professing the Hindu religion could be appointed to the colleges and he shall cease to hold office when he ceases to profess the religion. “It is pertinent to note that only Hindus are eligible for appointment in the third respondent college as it was started by the temple and it is a religious institution governed by the provisions of the HR & CE Act. As per Section 10 of the HR & CE Act, any appointment to the college, shall be a person professing the Hindu Religion and shall cease to hold office as such when he ceases to profess that religion,” the court observed. The court was hearing a petition filed by Suhail, a Tamil Muslim by birth seeking to be appointed in the Arulmigu Kapaleeswarar Arts and Science College in Kolathur. Suhail, who was seeking appointment to the post of Office Assistant had challenged the notification for a walk in interview issued by the College in which it was stated that only Hindus could apply for the posts. Suhail contented that the notification was against the provisions of Article 16(1) and Article 16(2) of the Constitution. He submitted that Article 16(5) would be applicable only to Hindu religious institutions or denominational institution or governing body of the Hindu Religious Institution and not to colleges run by the department. Drawing attention to Section 6(18) [meaning of religious institution] and Section 10 of the HR & CE Act [mandating officers of HR & CE to be Hindu], Suhail argued that there was no bar on appointing a non-Hindu as teaching or non-teaching staff to the colleges. Suhail further argued that administrating an educational institution is a secular activity and not a religious activity. The respondent authorities however argued that the College was fully funded institution under the Arulmigu Kapaleeswar Temple and thus the department had to abide by the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act while selecting persons to be employed in the college. It was submitted that the college formed part of the temple's activities which in turn regulates running of any Hindu religious institution and therefore, the provisions cited by Suhail would not be applicable to the institution. The authorities highlighted that the college was not a minority institution but a self financial college running only unaided courses due to which government rules of employment are not applicable to the college. The court agreed with the submission of the authorities and noted that the college was a religious institution governed by the provisions of the Act. Thus, noting that there was no illegality, the court dismissed the petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Doraisamy Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.S.Ravichandran, AGP, Mr.S.Surya for A.S.Kailasam & Associates Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 459 Case Title: A Suhail v State of Tamil Nadu and Others Case No: W.P.No.22766 of 2021Click here to read/download the judgment

Madras High Court Upholds 'Only Hindus' Condition For Appointment In Temple-Run Self-Financing College, Applies Article 16(5)

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Madras High Court Upholds 'Only Hindus' Condition For Appointment In Temple-Run Self-Financing College, Applies Article 16(5)

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers