The Madras High Court ruled that only Hindus can be appointed to roles in self-financing colleges funded by temple resources, dismissing a petition from a Muslim candidate. Justice Singh clarified that such institutions don’t qualify as “State” under the Constitution, allowing for religious-based hiring. The ruling emphasizes the religious identity of these institutions and their employment criteria.
Madras: The Madras High Court has ruled that only Hindus can be appointed to teaching and non-teaching positions in self-financing colleges and schools funded by temple resources under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made this observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by a Muslim candidate, A. Suhail, who had applied for the post of Office Assistant at Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar Arts and Science College in Chennai.
Justice Singh clarified that self-financing institutions, which do not receive government aid, do not fall under the definition of “State” as per the Constitution, thereby exempting them from the mandate of providing equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 16(1) and 16(2). Instead, such institutions are governed by Article 16(5), which allows religious-based appointments in certain denominational institutions.
The court noted that the college’s recurring expenses are met through fees collected from students and not through government funds, further reinforcing its independent status.
“A self-financing institution funded by temple resources cannot be subjected to the constitutional mandate of non-discrimination applicable to State institutions,”
the judge observed.
Justice Singh pointed out that Section 10 of the HR&CE Act mandates that any officer or servant appointed under its purview must profess the Hindu religion. Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the college is an educational institution and not a religious one, the court emphasized the religious character of institutions established with temple funds.
“The institution cannot be divorced from its religious affiliation simply because it imparts education,”
the judge remarked.
In a significant directive, the court held that if any appointee ceases to profess Hinduism, they would be deemed to have relinquished their position automatically. This reinforces the HR&CE Act’s strict adherence to religious affiliation for employment in temple-funded institutions.
The judgment underscores the balance between constitutional mandates and religious practices protected under specific provisions. Article 16(5) of the Constitution allows for exceptions to the general rule of equal opportunity in public employment when it pertains to institutions run by religious denominations or connected to religious practices.
This ruling sets a precedent for religious-based appointments in self-financing institutions funded by temple resources. Justice Singh’s interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions ensures that the religious identity of such institutions is preserved, while simultaneously clarifying the limits of public employment laws.
The case emphasizes the distinct legal status of denominational institutions and their right to govern employment criteria in accordance with their religious principles.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE