Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Hindu Religious Institute's Decision To Terminate Employee For Concealing His Conversion To Christianity
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a religious institute and endowment office has absolute discretionary powers in framing rules for employees and servants. “The 4th respondent (Executive office of Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanam) has absolute discretionary powers in farming rules for employees and servants of the 4th respondent Establishment. Rule 3 of...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a religious institute and endowment office has absolute discretionary powers in framing rules for employees and servants.
“The 4th respondent (Executive office of Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanam) has absolute discretionary powers in farming rules for employees and servants of the 4th respondent Establishment. Rule 3 of AP Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servant Service Rules, 2000 adequately empowered the 4th respondent to prescribe the service conditions and service rules and Rule 3 mandates that all employees shall follow Rule 3…This rule mandates the employees of the 4th respondent to profess Hinduism and if any employee seizes to be a Hindu or converts into another religion, then his employment with the said religious institution would cease.”
Justice Harinath N. was hearing a writ petition, which was filed, challenging the termination of the petitioner from the office of Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanam wherein, he was appointed as Record Assistant.
The petitioner contended that he was appointed on compassionate grounds in 2002 and in 2010 he married a Christian girl, in a Church. He contended further that despite his being married to a Christian girl in a Church, he has not converted and remains a Hindu belonging to the Schedule Cast. However, the respondents under the false pretext that the petitioner had converted religions on account of getting his marriage solemnised in a Church, terminated his employment in the Executive Office of Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanam in 2012.
In furtherance of his claim, the petitioner filed his caste and school leaving certificate issued by the competent authorities revealing his caste as Indian, Hindu, Mala, Scheduled Caste Community.
The Executive Office of S.B.M.S.V.D, on the other hand, contended that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner before the Lokayukta and on the directions of the Lokayukta an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in the office. The petitioner was given ample chance of hearing, and the Competent Authority after hearing both sides, concluded that the petitioner was liable for termination under Section 3 of the AP Religious Institutes and Endowments Office.
The Bench observed that the petitioner had not filed the entries of the Marriage registry, but the Executive Office had. Further, the entries in the Marriage Registry would reveal that the religion of both, the petitioner and the girl he married were entered as ‘Christian’ and the petitioner had attested the same. The act of attestation the Court noted, would reveal that “the petitioner was conscious of the fact that he is a Christian and his marriage is with a Christian lady and the marriage is solemnized in a church as per the Christian rites and church formalities.”
The Court also glanced at Article 16(5) of the Constitution, which permits a Religious Institute to mandate that its employees profess a particular religion, and held that a combined reading of Article 16(5) with section 3 of the Endowments Act would disclose that the termination order issued by the Executive Office of S.B.M.S.V.D was not illegal.
“If this Court is to consider the contention of the petitioner that he has married a Christian girl without converting himself as a Christian, then the marriage ought to have been performed under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The marriage certificate ought to be issued under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, no certificate under Section 13 has been issued in the case of the petitioner in so far as his marriage is concerned….The stand of the petitioner is an afterthought and taken only to get over the statutory hurdle in him continuing in service of the 4th respondent.”
With that observation, the petition was dismissed.
Counsel for Petitioner: DR. Sireesh Anumula
Counsel for Respondents: G Ramana Rao (SC for endowments Rayalaseema region),A Sreekanth Reddy(SC for endowments)
W.P. No. 26353 of 2012