Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. The post of Melshanthi of the famed Sabarimala Temple is perhaps the most coveted of such positions in any other temple and it, therefore, is the ultimate grace aspired and sought for by every priest each year.

2. The process of selection to this post is ardous, with the final approval obtained from the divine providence itself, since the most qualified of all candidates is, at the end, chosen by draw of lots in front of the Sanctum, under the benign watch of the deity.

3. An aspirant to this post for the year has, in this Writ Petition, called into question the validity of a particular eligibility criterion, fixed by the Travancore Devaswom Board (hereinafter TDB for brevity), for candidates applying for this.

4. The petitioner is one among the many who have applied to take part in the selection process leading to the appointment of Melsanthi at the Sabarimala temple. He alleges that, he is now incapacitated from taking part in the process because, as per the relevant notification issued by the TDB, a copy of which is appended to this writ petition as Ext.P1, 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 the Sabarimala temple; and he predicates that this stipulation mandating continuous ten years service as Melshanthi amounts to an illegal classification among the Santhis, since it has no rationale nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by such classification.

5. The petitioner further asserts that till 2016 there was no such pre-conditional stipulation in the notifications of the respective years and he has placed on record exhibits P9 & P10, being the notifications for the years 2013 and 2014, to substantiate this. The petitioner thus contends that Ext.P2 notification, to the extent to which it includes this allegedly exclusionary stipulation, amounts to a hostile discrimination and causes an illegal classification among Santhis and therefore, liable to be struck down by this Court.

6. We have heard Shri Manilal, the learned counsel appearing for the the petitioner and Sri. Rajmohan, the learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Travancore Devaswom Board.

7. Even though the singular submissions of Shri Manilal, in challenge to the impugned condition in Ext.P2, is that it creates an unreasonable classification among the Santhis; thereby discriminating many of them vis-a-vis those who are now in the field of choice; we are of the certain view that what is sought to be done through Ext.P1 is not a classification but the prescription of a specific qualification, so as to identify the best and most suitable candidate. We say this because, going by Ext.P1, any person who has been a Santhi for the last 12 years, out of which ten years having been continuously served as a Melsanthi, would become qualified for being invitied to the process of selection as Melsanthi of the Sabarimala temple.

8. We fail to understand how Shri Manilal contends that there is a classification among the Santhis here.

9. All Melsanthis are Santhis and therefore, what is now sought to be done is not to classify Santhis and Melsanthis into two categories, but to prescribe an additional qualification for the aspiring Santhis, so that the Devaswom Board will be able to obtain the best of the lot. This is imperative because we are told that there are more than 1200 Santhis in the service of the Board, out of which a large majority would have already qualified as being a Santhi for more than 12 years. The intention of the Board obviously, therefore, is to identify and pick the best out of them, by stipulating a further qualification, not in the form of a sub-classification, but as an additional prescription, for identifying the best among the aspirants available.

10. This is ineluctable, since Ext.P1 notification does not provide that every Santhi who has put in 12 years 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 Melshanthi of Sabarimala Temple. Such prescriptive conditions to determine eligibility of a person can, by no stretch of imagination, be seen as a sub-classification; but the twelve year continuous service as a Melsanthi in any other temple is only a qualificational conditionprecedent and the fixing of such a period is intended to narrow the field of choice to the most experienced in terms of years.

11. 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.

12. Viewed thus, obviously, the submissions of Shri Manilal, which are based on the intelligible differentia principles relating to classification or the alleged absence of a rationale nexus to an objective to be achieved, would not apply or be relevant, since we are certain in our mind that what is sought to be done through Ext.P1 is not a classification among the Santhis but the prescription of an additional qualification. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon the petitioner to tell us why this qualification is illegal or perverse.

13. The endevour of Shri Manilal in this regard was by taking us through the Travancore Devaswom Manual, published by the TDB in the year 2011 and to contend that Chapter 5 of the said Manual treats Santhikkars as a single class and that the provisions of a Melsanthi therein is only with respect to the volume and nature of work in a particular temple. He says that the said Manual does not speak specifically about the difference between the Melsanthis and other Santhis, but only thatMelsanthis and Keezhsanthis are appointed in temples where there is a requirement of more than one Santhi. He tries to emphasise that, going by the enumeration of duties of Santhikkars under the Manual, they are in parity with the duties allotted to a Melsanthi and, thus in effect, the submissions of Shri Manilal is that Melsanthis are called so in certain temples where the volume of work is higher and where, therefore, more than one Santhikkars are appointed.

14. The learned Standing Counsel for the TDB submits that the prescriptions in Ext.P1 are in the nature of specified qualifications for the Sabarimala temple alone and that these prescriptions are at variance with those for other temples. He justifies Ext.P1 by saying that Sabarimala is not an ordinary temple; but that it has its own singular characteristics, which would require the best and the most experienced Santhi to be appointed as its Melsanthi. He says that 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. He further adds that even when all these qualificational stipulations 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 Honble Supreme Court in its judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.2570 and 2571 of 2003.

15. On a consideration of the afore submissions, we are certain in our mind that the sole issue that should engage our attention in this case is whether the prescription of qualifications mentioned in Ext.P1 should obtain our imprimatur or whether it should be seen as something that is beyond the purposes for which it has been designed.

16. As we have said above, the attempt of the TDB should always be to find the best among the Santhis, so that he will be able to perform as a Purappedasanthi of the Sabarimala temple for a continuous period of one year. His devotion, his competence, his experience and his devoutness are all imperatively relevant criterion, which will require to be specifically and pointedly examined and assessed by the competent Authorities; and in order to find the person most suitable to the post, we are certainly of the view that 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.

17. That apart, these are issues that are squarely within the realm of policy-adoption and creation by the appointing authority which, in this case, is the TDB and going by the well-recognised principles in matters relating to the fixing and stipulation of the qualifications of its employees, as declared by the Honble Supreme Court from time to time, we would be completely proscribed from entering into such areas, unless the petitioner shows us that these prescriptions are illegal and void ab initio(see for support- (1990) 1 SCC 288 [LQ/SC/1989/642] - (J. Rangaswamy vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh) and (2017)13 SCC 498 [LQ/SC/2018/1023] - (Nagaland Public Service Commission vs. State of Nagaland and other s]

18. In the case at hand, not merely have we not been convinced that these prescriptions are perverse or impossible of attainment, we are told by the learned Standing Counsel for the TDB that there are at least 101 applications from persons, who satisfy these qualifications and therefore, the further submission of Shri Manilal,though made sotto voce, that these conditions are impossible of being attained by the Santhis, cannot obtain our favour. The principles of the maxim Lex non cogit ad impossibilia, which postulates that Law does not compel the doing of impossibilities, cannot apply here because it is only where the prescribed conditions or qualifications are impossible of performance or attainment for every one, can the petitioner obtain refuge under it.

19. In the afore circumstances, we find no cogent reason to entertain this writ petition and we consequently, dismiss it; finding the contentions raised herein to be completely without merit.

Needless to say, the undertaking made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board that the petitioners application will not be rejected, recorded in the proceedings of this Court on 08.10.2018, will stand vacated and the petitioner would not obtain any benefit even for taking part in the selection.