The Madras High Court rejected a petition contesting the recruitment notice that stated that being a Hindu is mandatory for employment in institutions run by Hindu temples. The High Court ruled that Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Act only permits the appointment of Hindus to positions at a college founded with temple funds alone.
It further declared that the instant such appointees stopped proclaiming to be Hindu, they would be considered to have resigned from their positions. According to the recent ruling by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, the temple established the college and therefore a religious establishment subject to the HR&CE Act’s regulations.
A. Suhail, a Muslim candidate for the position of Office Assistant at Chennai’s Arulmighu Kapaleeswarar Arts and Science College, filed a writ petition in 2021, but, the court denied it asserting that a self-financing organization that does not receive government assistance would not be considered a “state” to ensure equal opportunities in public employment. “As per Section 10 of the Act, any appointment to the college shall be a person professing the Hindu religion,” Justice Vivek Kumar Singh pronounced.
Suhail had contested the Kapaleeswarar Arts and Science College’s announcement regarding hiring several employees. He claimed that he was denied the equality of employment provided by the Constitution because he could not become qualified for an appointment. However, according to the court, Articles 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution, forbidding discrimination based on religion in public employment, would not apply to a self-financing college set up with temple funds and whose ongoing costs were covered by student fees.
It noted that it would instead be covered under Article 16(5), which allows religiously motivated appointments in some denominational institutions. The judge also emphasized that any officer or servant designated to carry out the Act’s purpose must be a practising Hindu, as required by Section 10 of the HR&CE Act. He dismissed the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel that Articles 16(1) and (2) would apply since a college, even if it started with temple monies, could only be regarded as an educational institution and not a religious one.
