A non-reserved participant’s complaint did not warrant setting aside the entire selection process.

The appellants were appointed as Assistant non-Hereditary Archakas at Sri Banashankari Amma Temple following a selection process conducted in 2018.

Respondent No. 4 challenged the selection, alleging non-compliance with the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 and the Rules made under it.

The appellants separately challenged a Commissioner’s show-cause notice proposing cancellation of their appointments on the ground that reservation had not been followed.

The Single Judge held that reservation applied to the appointments and directed that the selection of Assistant non-Hereditary Archakas and temple servants be conducted afresh.

The appellants appealed the common judgment.

Whether the entire selection process could be set aside for non-compliance with reservation requirements, including at the instance of a candidate who had participated in the selection and was not from a reserved category.

Whether the appellants’ appointments should instead be considered by the Commissioner after the appellants respond to the show-cause notice and establish their entitlement to the appointments.

Rule 12 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Rules, 2002 governs the procedure for filling vacancies, including those of Assistant non-Hereditary Archakas and temple servants, and makes the procedure—including reservation—subject to Section 58 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.

Section 58 requires officials exercising powers under the Act to observe the customs, usages, ceremonies and practices appropriate to the relevant institution, and not to interfere with them.

The Court considered the appellants’ claim that the temple’s customs and practices governed the appointments and that the selection had been conducted with departmental approval and the participation of an Agama Pandit.

Because Rule 12 makes the selection procedure subject to Section 58, the Court treated the applicability of reservation in light of temple custom as a matter requiring consideration by the Commissioner.

It also found that setting aside the whole selection at the instance of a participating candidate who was not entitled to apply under the reserved category was unwarranted on the facts.

However, the appellants still had to answer the show-cause notice and establish their entitlement to continue in their posts.

The appellants were directed to submit replies to the show-cause notice, and the Commissioner was to decide the matter after hearing them and considering subsequent developments.

All contentions were left open.

The appeals were allowed in part.