Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The petitioner, who submitted an application pursuant to the notification issued by the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1198 M.E. (2022-23), has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 30.07.2022, whereby the application made by the petitioner stands rejected for the reason that the experience certificate produced along with the application is not in the prescribed format. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to accept Ext.P2 application and call him for the interview for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1198 M.E. (2022-23), scheduled to be held on 26.09.2022 and 27.09.2022 or any other date; and also for a writ of mandamus to consider Ext.P2 application in the light of Ext.P5 representation within such period as may be specified by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents.

3. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P4 order dated 30.07.2022, whereby Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1198 M.E. (2022-23) stands rejected for the reason that the experience certificate produced along with the application is not in the prescribed format.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the format of the experience certificate specified in Ext.P1 notification dated 06.07.2022 is applicable only in the case of those who have experience in temples under the management of Devaswom Boards. Separate experience certificates will have to be produced in the case of those who have experience in private temples. Ext.P2 application dated 15.07.2022 made by the petitioner is supported by an experience certificate dated 12.07.2022 issued by the Secretary, SNDP Branch No.434, Niranam. Later, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 experience certificate dated 22.07.2022 issued by the Secretary, SNDP Branch No.434, Niranam, in the prescribed format. However, the petitioner was informed vide Ext.P4 communication of the 1st respondent Board that Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1198 M.E. (2022- 23) stands rejected for the reason that the experience certificate produced along with the application is not in the prescribed format.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that Ext.P2 application dated 15.07.2022 submitted by the petitioner for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1198 M.E. (2022-23) was not supported by experience certificate in the format prescribed in Ext.P1 notification dated 06.07.2022 and therefore, his application was rejected for the said reason, which was communicated to him vide Ext.P4. As per Ext.P1 notification, the application along with the required documents, as specified in the said notification, had to reach the office of the 1st respondent Board before 3.00 p.m. on 21.07.2022.

6. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple situated inside Periyar Tiger Reserve is a prominent pilgrim centre in Kerala, where lakhs of devotees trek the rugged terrains of Western Ghats to have darsan of Lord Ayyappa. Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple come under the Travancore Devaswom Board. By reason of custom and tradition, Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple are selected every year. The tenure of the Melsanthies is for one year from the 1st of Vrischikam to the 31st of Thulam next year. Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple are ‘Purappada Santhies’, who are not allowed to leave Sannidhanam, on the closure of the shrine after the festivals or monthly pooja, till the completion of their tenure.

7. In Krishnan Namboothiri S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2015 (5) KHC 829 [LQ/KerHC/2015/2486] ], in the context of selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple, a Division Bench of this Court held that selection to the post of Melsanthi cannot be treated as a selection merely for public employment and the canvas in which grounds relating to Articles 14, 16, etc., of the Constitution of India would be etched, will not necessarily be carried, as a whole, into such matters. The scheme of the settlement and purpose of the selection to provide Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples have to be borne in mind and cohesively treated while assimilating and applying the terms of the settlement. The Division Bench, though declined interference with the selection process, indicated before parting with the case that once the terms of mediation settlement came to be in operation, the guarantee to the pilgrims, believers, worshippers and faithful followers is that the selection process once carried through the system of the terms of that settlement will give them two persons who will occupy the adorable status of being the Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sannidhanam and Malikappuram temples. When such seeds of faith are intricately connected with religion, judicial review is impermissible to embark upon and consider any rival claims in the manner as is sought to be raised in the writ petitions. This is all the more so when no breach of the Constitution of India is demonstrated.

8. In Rajesh J. Potty v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2018 (5) KHC 220 [LQ/KerHC/2018/2723] ] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a case which was filed by an applicant who applied to take part in the selection process leading to the appointment of Melsanthi at Sabarimala Temple. In the writ petition, it was alleged that the petitioner is incapacitated from taking part in the process because, as per Ext.P1 notification issued by the Travancore Devaswom Board, only a Santhi (Priest) who has had 12 years’ experience, out of which, 10 years being spent continuously serving as a Melsanthi (Head Priest) of a temple would alone obtain eligibility for being selected as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple. In the writ petition, it was contended that the above stipulation mandating continuous 10 years’ service as Melsanthi amounts to an illegal classification among the Santhies, since it has no rationale nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by such classification. The petitioner pointed out that till 2016, there was no such stipulation in the notifications, as evidenced by Ext.P9 notification for the year 2013 and Ext.P10 notification for the year.

9. In Rajesh J. Potty [2018 (5) KHC 220 [LQ/KerHC/2018/2723] ] the Division Bench noticed that Ext.P1 notification does not provide that every Santhi who has put in 12 years’ service is automatically eligible; but it additionally prescribes a condition that such Santhis should also have served as a Melsanthi in a temple for a continuous period of 10 years out of this, for being rendered eligible to be appointed as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Temple. Such prescriptive conditions to determine the eligibility of a person can, by no stretch of imagination, be seen as a sub-classification; but the 12 years continuous service as a Melsanthi in any other temple is only a qualificational condition precedent and the fixing of such a period is intended to narrow the field of choice to the most experienced in terms of years. This becomes all the more relevant because, going by the notification, a person who becomes the Melsanthi in Sabarimala can apply again only after a period of 10 years. These are the prescriptions stipulated in the notification, not to discriminate among persons; but solely to ensure that only a person with the stature and experience behooving the sanctity and divinity of Sabarimala, which is one of the most or perhaps the most prominent temples in the country, is identified and appointed. Before the Division Bench, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Chapter 5 of the Travancore Devaswom Manual published by the Board in the year 2011 treats ‘Santhikkars’ as a single class and that the provisions of a Melsanthi therein are only with respect to the volume and nature of work in a particular temple. Manual does not speak specifically about the difference between Melsanthis and other Santhis, but only that Melsanthis and Keezhsanthis are appointed in temples where there is a requirement of more than one Santhi. Before the Division Bench, it was argued by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board that the prescription in Ext.P1 notification is in the nature of specified qualifications for the Sabarimala Temple alone and that these prescriptions are at variance with those for other temples, since Sabarimala is not an ordinary temple, which has its own singular characteristics, which would require the best and the most experienced Santhi to be appointed as the Melsanthi. The Board, therefore, in the year 2016, thought it fit to enumerate certain adscititious conditions to identify the best candidate, by stipulating that only a person, who has 12 years’ experience as a Santhi, out of which 10 years being continuously served as a Melsanthi of another temple, would obtain eligibility for being included in the field of choice for appointment as the Melsanthi of Sabarimala. Even when all these stipulations regarding qualification are obtained to a person, he only comes within the field of choice and he does not get any vested right to be appointed, since such appointment is based on a further selection in the manner as has been postulated by the Apex Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 2570-71 of 2003.

10. In Rajesh J. Potty [2018 (5) KHC 220 [LQ/KerHC/2018/2723] ], on consideration of the aforesaid contentions on the prescription of the qualifications mentioned in Ext.P1 notification, the Division Bench found that the attempt of the Travancore Devaswom Board should always be to find the best among the Santhis, so that he will be able to perform as a Purappedasanthi of Sabarimala Temple for a continuous period of one year. His devotion, his competence, his experience and his devoutness are all imperatively relevant criteria, which will require to be specifically and pointedly examined and assessed by the competent authorities; and in order to find the person most suitable for the post, the prescription that he should have served as a Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years in the 12 year period of experience as a Santhi cannot be found to be perverse in any manner.

11. As already noticed, the qualification prescribed for selection as Melsanthi is that the applicant should be a person having service as Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years out of a total period of 12 years in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship. In the order dated 08.11.2021 in SSCR No. 5 of 2021 this Court found that the Travancore Devaswom Board shall prescribe a format for the certificate that has to be enclosed along with the application for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple showing the required experience of the candidate in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship, specifying the competent authority who has to issue such certificate in respect of the temples under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board and in respect of temples other than those under the management of the Board, where public is having right to worship. The Board was directed to take a decision in that regard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of the said order, which shall be placed before this Court for approval. With the above direction, this Court disposed of SSCR No. 5 of 2021.

12. Based on the directions contained in the order of this Court dated 08.11.2021 in SSCR. No. 5 of 2021, the Travancore Devaswom Board filed DBA No.5 of 2022, producing therewith as Annexure A1 the format of the certificate that has to be enclosed along with the application for selection of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple showing the required experience of the candidates. By the order dated 04.07.2022 in DBA No.5 of 2022, this Court granted approval to Annexure A1 format of experience certificate, subject to the modification that, in Clause (4) of the format (above the column) the required qualification has to be specified, i.e., the applicant should be a person having service as Melsanthi for a continuous period of 10 years out of a total period of 12 years in a temple which opens twice daily and having three poojas and where public is having right to worship. In addition to this, the experience certificate shall bear the full name, designation and address along with the office seal of the officer/authority issuing such certificate and also the date. The Board shall not permit any candidate to substitute the experience certificate enclosed along with the application, which shall be specified in the format of the experience certificate and also in the notification.

13. In the instant case, the experience certificate produced by the petitioner along with Ext.P2 application dated 15.07.2022 for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1198 M.E. (2022-23) was not supported by experience certificate in the format prescribed in Ext.P1 notification dated 06.07.2022. The said experience certificate dated 12.07.2022 (available at page No.21 of the writ petition) is one issued by the Secretary, SNDP Branch No.434, Niranam, in the letterhead of Thettalikkal Devi Temple. As per the said certificate, the petitioner is serving as Melsanthi of Thettalikkal Devi Temple from 09.05.2011 till 12.07.2022 (excluding the period from 17.08.2018 to 16.08.2019). As per the certificate dated 12.07.2022, the petitioner was the Melsanthi of Attukal Bhagavathy Temple, under Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust, during the period from 17.08.2018 to 16.08.2019. The document available at page No.22 of the writ petition is a certificate dated 17.08.2019 issued by the Secretary of Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust, wherein it is certified that the petitioner was the Melsanthi of Attukal Bhagavathy Temple, under Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust, during the period from 17.08.2018 to 16.08.2019. Admittedly, Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for selection as Melsanthi for Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1198 M.E. (2022-23) was not supported by the experience certificate in the format prescribed in Ext.P1 notification dated 06.07.2022. The experience certificates produced were issued by the Secretary, SNDP Branch No.434, Niranam for the period from 09.05.2011 till 12.07.2022 (excluding the period from 17.08.2018 to 16.08.2019) and another experience certificate issued by the Secretary, Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust, for the period from 17.08.2018 to 16.08.2019.

14. The document marked as Ext.P3 is an experience certificate dated 22.07.2022 obtained by the petitioner from the Secretary, SNDP Branch No.434, Niranam, in the format prescribed in Ext.P1 notification. As per Ext.P1 notification, the application along with the required documents, as specified in the said notification, has to reach the office of the 1st respondent Board before 3.00 pm on 21.07.2022. Moreover, the petitioner has not obtained an experience certificate in the prescribed format from the Secretary, Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust, for the period from 17.08.2018 to 16.08.2019.

15. Admittedly, Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for selection as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1198 M.E. (2022-23) was not supported by the experience certificate in the format prescribed in Ext.P1 notification dated 06.07.2022. As per the said notification, the application along with the required documents, as specified in the said notification, should have to reach the office of the 1st respondent Board before 3.00 pm on 21.07.2022.

16. In the above circumstances, the 1st respondent Board cannot be found fault with in rejecting the petitioner’s application, for the reason stated in Ext.P4. The petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.