The High Court of Karnataka on Monday declined to interfere with the posting of non-Hindu public servants to some posts in offices coming under the Commissioner for Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments in the State.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty passed the order while disposing of two PIL petitions filed in 2016 and 2018.
The Bench observed that there was no “general prohibition” in the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act of 1997 on the appointment of non-Hindus to posts under the offices of the Commissioner. The Act only stated that every officer or servant appointed to carry out the purposes of this Act shall be a person professing the Hindu religion.
The Bench said all the works assigned to those working in the offices of the Commissioner cannot be termed as “carrying out the purposes of the Act”, as it will vary with the nature of the work. To illustrate this, the Bench said that a person posted as data operator or one supervising the works of Group D employees cannot be said to be carrying out the purposes of the Act.
On the challenge made to the appointment of a Muslim officer as superintendent in the office of the Commissioner in a PIL petition filed in 2018 by Bharat Punaruthan Trust, the Bench said it could not pass an order as no material was placed before the court on the nature of work assigned to the officer.
While disposing of another PIL petition, which questioned the printing of the name of the then Deputy Commissioner of Dakshina Kannada district, A.B. Ibrahim, in an invitation to the car festival of Mahalingeshwara temple in Puttur, the Bench observed, “Staff of the government, irrespective of their religion, discharge their duties to celebrate festivals of different religions. In fact, that is part of the Constitutional philosophy and the concept of secularism.”
In 2016, the government had told the court that Mr. Ibrahim was not in charge of the Hindu charitable institutions in the district as an Additional Commissioner was given that responsibility. The name of the Deputy Commissioner was printed because of his post as head of the district administration. The High Court had then advised the authorities to print a few more invitation cards without his name to prevent further controversy.
