Thread by @sri0904

1 Sriranganarayana Jeer – An employee / servant of Srirangam Temple?
HR & CE issued a week ago an advertisement for the post of 51st Jeer for the Srirangam Temple. It was later removed from the web site. However, similar advertisements were issued

2 for the appointment of 42nd, 44th, 48th and 49th Jeers in the past. As per the decisions of the Court cases, Sriranga Narayana Jeer is an employee / servant appointed by the HR & CE Department to perform and oversee certain functions of the temple.

3 The Mutt on the North Uthara Street, near Thayar Sannidhi entrance, also called Udayavar Madam is not a separate Madam. The udayavar Madam has no independent existence. Mutt has no property attached to it and as such has failed to meet the criteria for a "Mutt"

4 under Section 6(13) of the TN HR & CE Act 1959. This Mutt is part of the Temple administration. The Jeer appointed by the temple is not the head of this Mutt. Mutt is the quarters allotted by the Temple to its servant Jeer.

5 49th Jeer of the Temple had some problem with the temple authorities and was suspended from the temple. The Jeer approached the court at Trichy in OS No.235 of 1982 to declare the order of suspension null and void. He claimed that Sthalathars only have the authority to select

6 and nominate the Jeer. He was nominated by the Sthalathars only and he was not an employee or servant of the temple. Further, he was the head of the Udayavar Mutt. The Court dismissed his suit mainly on the ground that the Jeer failed to establish the following: -

7 (a) Sthalathars only have authority in the temple to appoint the Jeer, and (b) 49th Jeer himself was appointed by the Sthalathars. On the contrary, the Jeer submitted his application to the HR & CE Department and HR & CE Department issued appointment order

8 appointing him as the 49th Jeer of the Temple. Further, the court refused to consider certain Silasasanams in the Temple showing properties were donated to the Mutt and it was headed by a Jeer. Puthur Krishnaswamy Iyengar sincerely gave evidence and explained from the

9 book “Koil Olugu” regarding the Silasasanams in Thiruvinnazhi Prakaram. He saw the inscriptions in 1975. Since the HR & CE painted and sand blasted the area during the 1981 Samprokshanam, part of the inscriptions got erased / destroyed and was not available for verification

10 with the materials printed in the book at the time of trial. No criminal action was initiated by anybody for the heinous crime (destruction of inscription) committed by the HR & CE Department. (This very requirement of “verification” as demanded by the trial court is

11 debatable). Strangely, none of the Sthalathars deemed it fit to give evidence to the effect that Sthalathars only have the appointing authority and they appointed the 49th Jeer also. In a similar case in 1905, the Sthalathars’ predecessors also kept silent and maintained a

12 distance from the then jeer’s case. Because of the non-cooperation of the Sthalathars, the Jeer had to accept a compromise decree to save his position. The terms of the 1905 compromise decree severely crippled the claim of the 49th Jeer in 1982.

13 No appeal was preferred against the 1982 case.