Kerala HC Quashes Thirteen-Year Executive Officer Appointment at Thirumandhamkunnu Temple, Orders New Scheme
A Kerala High Court Division Bench held that the Malabar Devaswom Board's indefinite appointment of an Executive Officer displaced the hereditary trustee's rights and violated the temple's 1966 scheme.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, on 26 May 2026 quashed the appointment of an Executive Officer at Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathy Temple, Angadippuram, Malappuram, along with all consequential orders. The appointment, made by the Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board in 2013 as a “stop-gap arrangement,” had continued for nearly thirteen years. The bench held that such prolonged, indefinite continuation effectively eclipsed the rights of the hereditary trustee under the 1966 scheme governing the temple. The court also directed the Malabar Devaswom Board to frame a new scheme replacing the existing one, finding the 1966 scheme obsolete and inadequate for the temple's proper administration.
The Dispute Before the Court
The temple is a Hindu religious institution governed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. Its administration is regulated by a scheme framed on 4 May 1966 in O.A. No. 15/1965. Under that scheme, the administration of the temple vests in the family of the hereditary trustee, who is the senior most male member of the “Valluvanadu Swaroopam” comprising four families: the Aiyranazhi Kovilakam, the Mankada Kovilakam, the Kadanamanna Kovilakam, and the Aripra Kovilakam. The senior most male member holds the hereditary title of “Valluvanattukara Vallabha Valiya Raja.”
Sri A.C. Bhanunni Raja, the hereditary trustee, died on 13 May 2013. Sri M.C. Kunhunni Raja, the first petitioner, became the next hereditary trustee. Because he was residing in Bangalore, he executed a power-of-attorney in favour of Sri A.C. Venugopal Raja, the second petitioner, and communicated this to the Commissioner. The Commissioner, however, took the position that a trustee cannot administer temple affairs through a power-of-attorney and that only a fit person approved by the Board could be appointed for that purpose.
In that backdrop, the Commissioner issued order No. J5/2317/2013/MDB dated 25 May 2013, appointing Sri C. Vinodkumar as Executive Officer in full additional charge. The petitioners challenged this appointment as illegal and ultra vires. Subsequently, pursuant to an interim order of this court dated 31 July 2017, Sri C.C. Dinesh took charge as Executive Officer on 1 August 2017 and continued to administer the temple's affairs.
Six matters were heard together: WP(C) No. 13541/2013 (the leading case, filed by the hereditary trustee), WP(C) No. 12598/2020 and WP(C) No. 26462/2021 (filed by temple employees challenging termination orders), WP(C) No. 23487/2021 and WP(C) No. 13495/2022 (filed by other terminated employees), and DBP No. 89/2017 (registered suo motu on a devotees' complaint alleging corruption and maladministration).
The Legal Questions
The bench identified the following issues across the connected matters: whether the Commissioner's appointment of an Executive Officer was valid under Section 20 of the Act; what the scope of the hereditary trustee's power to appoint temple employees was; whether the Commissioner had the power to terminate employees appointed by the trustee; and whether the revisional authority under Section 99 of the Act could remit a matter back to the original authority despite a specific direction from this court.
On the Executive Officer question, the petitioners relied on two earlier coordinate bench decisions. In A.C. Bhanunni v. Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department, this court had held that the hereditary trustee is not under the absolute control of, or an employee of, the Board, and that hereditary trustees have authority over administrative affairs including appointment, suspension, and termination of temple employees. In Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri v. Malabar Devaswom Board (2026 KHC 270), a coordinate bench had held that the Board cannot usurp the powers of the trustee by appointing a full-time Executive Officer under Section 20 of the Act.
On the employee appointments, the Board's standing counsel argued that the trustee's power to appoint servants under Section 48(1) of the Act is not absolute. Rule 10 of the Rules framed under Section 100(2)(y) of the Act requires that the pay and emoluments of each servant be in accordance with a schedule of establishment framed by the trustee and approved by the area committee or the Commissioner. The trustee cannot alter that schedule without prior permission. The Board contended that 17 appointments were made without observing any formalities and 27 persons were engaged against non-sanctioned posts, out of a total approved strength of 73 posts.
How the Bench Reasoned
On the Executive Officer appointment, the bench examined the 1966 scheme closely. Clause 3 of the scheme provides that the trustee shall appoint an Executive Officer with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner. Clause 3(a) states that only if the trustee fails to appoint an Executive Officer within one month does the appropriate authority acquire the power to make such an appointment, and in that event the Executive Officer shall be under the disciplinary control of the Department. Clause 4 requires the Executive Officer to work under the supervision of the trustee.
The bench found that the Commissioner's order R1(a) appointed the Executive Officer for an indefinite and unspecified period, without giving notice or affording an opportunity to the hereditary trustee. The court held that if the intention was to avoid a standstill in administration, the appointment could only have been for a limited period. An indefinite appointment, the bench reasoned, effectively displaces the hereditary trustee permanently.
The bench went further, laying down a general principle: the power to appoint an Executive Officer is intended to meet exceptional situations and cannot be exercised in a manner that results in permanent or indefinite displacement of the hereditary trustee. Where the Board considers circumstances to warrant such an appointment, it must be for a definite and specified period. The Board is duty-bound to periodically review whether the circumstances that necessitated the appointment continue to subsist. Only upon a conscious evaluation and a finding that the administrative impasse persists can the term be extended, and even then only for a further specified period. Indefinite extensions without periodic review are inconsistent with the statutory framework and the scheme.
On the employee appointments, the bench held that while Section 48(1) empowers the trustee to fill vacancies, Rule 10 mandates that appointments be made only against posts in the approved schedule of establishment. Appointments made over and above the sanctioned strength are illegal. An illegally appointed employee cannot seek regularisation or salary at par with regular employees. The bench distinguished the earlier decisions in A.C. Bhanunni, Parakkad Sree Bhagavathy Devaswom v. Malabar Devaswom Board, and Malabar Devaswom Board v. Hareesh V., holding that those precedents were not applicable to appointments made against non-sanctioned posts.
On the revisional authority question, the bench examined Section 99 of the Act and found that the revisional authority has ample power to remit a matter back to the original authority for reconsideration. The State's order (Ext.P6) had held that appointments over and above the 73 sanctioned posts were illegal and had remitted the question of appointments to sanctioned posts to the Commissioner. The bench found no illegality in that order and rejected the petitioners' contention that it violated the earlier judgment of this court in WP(C) No. 17010/2014.
On the DBP, the bench observed that the 1966 scheme is obsolete and inadequate. Several provisions are outdated — for instance, the clause permitting the Executive Officer to retain temple funds only up to Rs. 200. The scheme concentrates all power in a single individual, the senior most male member of the Swaroopam, who is often an octogenarian or septuagenarian, and who takes decisions independently without any consultative process. This concentration of power, the bench found, leads to corruption and mismanagement.
Outcome
The bench disposed of all six matters by a common judgment on 26 May 2026. The specific directions are as follows:
WP(C) No. 13541/2013 is allowed. The order appointing the Executive Officer at Sree Thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathy Temple and all consequential orders are set aside and quashed. The Devaswom Board and its officers are directed to take emergent steps to appoint the hereditary trustee as per the 1966 scheme. The present Executive Officer shall continue to hold office until a new hereditary trustee is appointed. This exercise is to be completed within one month from the date of the judgment.
The Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, is directed to frame a new scheme replacing the 1966 scheme under Section 58(1) of the Act, in consultation with the hereditary trustee, persons having interest, and the area committee having jurisdiction. The new scheme is to be framed after effective consultations with the trustee and members of the hereditary trustee families, and must contain provisions for smooth, effective, transparent, and corruption-free administration. This exercise is to be completed within three months from the date of the judgment. A draft of the new scheme is to be produced before the Devaswom Bench of this court for approval, and the new scheme shall be implemented only after receiving that approval.
WP(C) Nos. 12598/2020, 23487/2021, and 13495/2022 are dismissed. WP(C) No. 26462/2021 is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, to reconsider the matter afresh and ascertain whether the petitioners in that case were appointed to sanctioned posts, and to pass appropriate orders. DBP No. 89/2017 is closed.