Absence of foundational appointment records necessitates fresh selection process notwithstanding long-term service or subsequent revenue entries.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order (Annexure P/1) passed by the Additional Commissioner which upheld the appointment of Respondent No. 1 as a Pujari

Historically, the Collector had ordered fresh appointment proceedings on 22.12.2010 after finding that the original records for the respondent's appointment were unavailable

This order was revived by the High Court in 2018 and reaffirmed in 2024

Despite these directions for a fresh, transparent process, the Additional Commissioner passed a new order on 30.12.2025 upholding the disputed appointment based on secondary evidence like revenue entries and administrative correspondence

The Court applied the principles of Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding judicial review of administrative actions

It relied on the doctrine of fairness and transparency in public appointments, holding that a valid appointment must be supported by foundational records and cannot be substituted by mere "long continuance" or "subsequent recognition" in the absence of a lawful appointment proceeding

The Court also enforced the principle of "Remand Scope," asserting that an inferior authority cannot nullify earlier binding directions issued by a Superior Court

The Court observed that the primary records justifying the appointment of Respondent No. 1 were non-existent, a fact previously noted by the Collector and the High Court in earlier rounds of litigation

The Court reasoned that the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 30.12.2025 erroneously relied on "revenue entries and administrative communications" to validate an appointment that lacked a legal foundation

It was held that such an approach bypassed the Court's specific mandate to ensure a fresh process that allowed "equal participation to all eligible persons"

The Court further analyzed that the respondent would not be prejudiced by a fresh process as he remains eligible to participate

Since the controversy was identical to the connected matter (W.P. No. 1600 of 2026), the Court adopted the reasoning that the impugned order traveled beyond the scope of remand

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Additional Commissioner’s order dated 30.12.2025

The respondent authorities were directed to initiate and complete a fresh appointment process for the post of Pujari at Shri Vankhandeshwar Mahadev Temple strictly in accordance with law and government policy

This process must be completed preferably within four weeks, allowing all eligible candidates, including the petitioner and Respondent No. 1, to participate