Determination of Pujari's subsisting appointment falls within the administrative domain of the Collector.

The petitioner, a duly appointed Pujari of the Ram Janki Temple, alleged that influential locals attempted to seize temple property.

He was previously acquitted of false criminal charges under Section 376 IPC on 29.11.2021, and a subsequent administrative inquiry closed all complaints against him, leading to an order by the SDM on 17.01.2025 to restore the temple keys to him.

While the keys were briefly handed over in August 2025, the petitioner alleged that the Station House Officer (Respondent No. 5) acting without authority, forcibly entered the temple, assaulted him, and handed the keys to private respondents.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking restoration of possession and enforcement of the SDM’s order.

1. Whether the petitioner’s appointment as Pujari of the Ram Janki Temple remains legally valid and subsisting.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to perform seva and puja without obstruction based on existing administrative arrangements.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's discretionary power to issue directions for the protection of lawful rights.

The doctrine that the determination of factual status regarding appointments and temple management falls within the primary jurisdiction of the District Collector as the competent administrative authority.

The Court observed that while the petitioner sought reliefs regarding criminal action and physical possession, the "core issue" was the subsistence of the petitioner’s legal status as a Pujari.

Rather than adjudicating the disputed facts of the assault or the illegal seizure of keys directly, the Court reasoned that the Collector is the "best suited" authority to examine the records of appointment, existing rules, and past administrative orders.

The Court held that if the petitioner’s appointment has not been validly terminated in accordance with law, he possesses a consequential right to perform his duties. Therefore, the resolution of the grievance depends on a factual verification of the administrative records by the district head rather than a summary finding by the Writ Court.

The Court held that if the appointment is found to be valid, the authorities must make "appropriate consequential arrangements" to ensure the petitioner can perform seva and puja without obstruction, subject to public order, to be completed within four weeks from the production of the certified order.