Reconsider hereditary rights of temple priests: HC

Hyderabad: Justice MG Priyadarshini of the Telangana High Court referred to the endowments court the claims of 16 pujaris as hereditary pujaris of Sri Chennakesava Swamy temple and Anjaneya Swamy temple at Kodair near Kurnool.

TN Pradeep Kumar and his brother Ramakrishna Murthy have moved the court seeking a declaration that they are hereditary pujaris and trustees and are entitled to receive emoluments and honoraria like Dhupa Deepa Naivedyam Scheme (DDNS) and others attached to the temple. According to the petitioners, the temple in question is a very small but ancient temple which has been in existence since the time of Vijayanagara dynasty and whose annual income was less than 10,000. The ancestors of the petitioners were recognized as hereditary pujaris and trustees of the temple. Their great-grandfather had sent a letter in 1939 to the chief engineer of the Nizam government as a muttawali in which it was felt that there was no income for the temple, and that it was absolutely necessary for its reconstruction. It was in a state of disrepair. However, this letter having remained unanswered, it was renovated with his personal resources. The function of pujariship and guardianship of the subject temple is hereditary in nature and belongs to their family. Earlier their ancestors were in the temple administration as pujaris-trustees and now they perform the rituals in a similar capacity and the temple has remained exclusively in their hands for all these decades. The endowments department declared that the application was not admissible before the court due to lack of jurisdiction of this court to entertain the application as well as that of the candidates as such, the allocation of beneficiaries under the DDNS cannot be decided only by an Endowments Commissioner, who will issue a notification calling eligible candidates to apply. If a candidate is found eligible, he or she will benefit from this program. The petitioners seek to be declared hereditary pujaris and trustees of the temple in question, whereas as per Act 30/87 and its related rules, this is not possible. There is an express circular issued by the Endowments Commissioner, in which it is said that a person cannot be considered both a trustee and a hereditary pujari in any temple. The petitioners do not have any official declaration from the competent authorities of the Endowments Tribunal declaring them as hereditary pujaris-founder trustees of the temple in question. Criticizing the court’s approach, Justice Priyadarshini said that on the one hand, the court was of the view that it had no jurisdiction to hear the petitioner, while on the other hand, he mentioned that the Commissioner to endowments was the appropriate authority to identify the hereditary archaka-cum. -fiduciary under the Act. Further, the court observed that a person cannot be so appointed and in such circumstances it should not have observed that the Commissioner of Endowments was the lawful authority. In these circumstances, the judge said that “this court finds that the court has made the impugned order without considering the evidence in its proper perspective and therefore it is necessary to interfere with the findings of the court.”

The judge further pointed out that on the date of filing of the claim petition, the tribunal was constituted and as such, he should not have observed in the impugned order that the tribunal was not empowered to deal with the matter under section 87 of the Act. The judge made it clear that the temple will decide the matter in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the comments or remarks made by this court in this judgment and will hear again giving both parties an opportunity to argue their respective arguments.

HC requests compliance report on paramedical staff

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court has ordered the state to file a compliance report with regard to facilities and recruitment of medical and paramedical staff in government hospitals. The panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Sreenivas Rao, was dealing with a PIL filed by K. Akhil Sri Guru Teja, chairman of Help the People Charitable Trust. The petitioner alleged that the state was not providing adequate facilities and filling vacancies of medical and paramedical staff in government hospitals. The petitioner said such action by the state was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court and also in non-compliance with the Indian Public Health Standards, 2022, which pertains to establishment of district and zonal hospitals, community health centers, PHC and other public hospitals. . The lawyer representing the government requested time to assess the court regarding the available facilities. The panel, while considering the same, directed the state to file a compliance report within a week. The case will now be heard on October 23.

Chess player moves HC for engineer seat

Telangana High Court to examine legality of actions of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) and Telangana Council of Higher Education in approving chess player’s application for admission to course as ineligible engineering within the framework of the sports quota. Justice T. Vinod Kumar placed on record a plea filed by Mr. Sreeshwan, challenging the decision of the respondent authorities which found him ineligible for admission under the sports quota. The petitioner requested admission during the Eapcet 2024 process, asserting his eligibility for the sports quota due to his participation in national and international competitions. His application was rejected on the grounds that he did not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria for five years. The petitioner argued that his participation in the 2019 events was within the required period, but was nevertheless unfairly rejected as authorities misinterpreted the guidelines. On behalf of the Telangana State Sports Authority (SATS), it was contended that the rejection was due to lack of support for lower level competitions within the five year period as per clause 5(a) of the GO. On a previous occasion, the judge had observed that the relevant clause did not explicitly require lower level competitions within the specified time limit and that the rejection of the applicant’s application therefore seemed unjustified. Accordingly, the judge granted interim relief by ordering the authorities to consider the petitioner’s admission under the sports quota.