APHC010328902013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31655/2013 Between: 1. J. RAVI KUMAR,, S/O. AZARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: PRESENTLY WORKING AS JR. ASSISTANT, SRI TRIKOTESWARA SWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM, KOYSPPSKONDA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF A P, REP. BY ITS THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, BOGGULAKUNTA, TILAK ROAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT GUNTUR, - 3. SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHASWAMY VARI DEVASTHANAM, MANGALAGIRI,GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 4. SRI RAJYA LAKSHMI SAMETHA LAKSHMINARASIMHA SWAMY VARI, DEVASTHANAM, R. AGRAHARAM, GUNTUR, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) Declaring the proceedings in RC No. NIL/2013 dt. 25.09.2013 The Executive Officer of the 4th Respondent i.e. Sri Rajya Lakshmi Sametha Lakshminarasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, R. Agraharam, Guntur temple as bad, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, contrary to Law and b) Consequently declare that the petitioner is employee of 3rd Rspondent institution and is entitled to be continued as Jr. Assisatnt in pursuance of the proceedings of 3rd Respondent i.e. Executive Officer, Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Vari Devasthanam, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, in RC No. B1/ 106/2007 dt. 15.03.2008 from said date of his promotion as Jr. Assistant with all consequential benefits at the 3rd Respondent institution and to pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 39339 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings RC No. NIL/2013 dt. 25.09.2013 of the 4th 2 Respondent i.e., Executive Officer, Sri Rajya Lakshmi Sametha Lakshminarasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, R.Agraharam, Guntur and consequential direct respotkietr to continue me as Jr.Assistant as per the proceedings in RC No. B1/106/2007 dt. 15.03.2008 of the 3rd Respodnent temple i.e. Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy Vari Devasthanam, Mangalagiri, Guntur District pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JESHTADI SUNIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KAPPERA KOTESWARA RAO SC for Endowments,AP Region. 2. V T M PRASAD 3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: Date of reserve : 17.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 08.05.2026 Date of Upload : 08.05.2026 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.31655 of 2013 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is challenging proceedings dated 25.09.2013 issued by the Executive Officer of the 4th respondent and seeks a consequential direction to declare that the petitioner is an employee of the 3rd respondent institution and to treat him as Junior Assistant in pursuance of the proceedings dated 15.03.2008, and also seeks all consequential benefits at the 3rd respondent institution. 2. Sri W.B.Srinivas, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Attender in Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, R.Agraharam, Guntur Town vide proceedings dated 28.01.1988. 3. It is submitted that one Sri. S.Anjaneyacharyulu, Attender – Cum – Record Assistant working in the 3rd respondent, sought a transfer to the 4th respondent. The petitioner also requested that the 3rd respondent institution do so on mutual terms. The mutual transfer request of the petitioner and S.Anjaneyacharyulu was accepted, and proceedings dated 25.02.1988 were issued. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was promoted as Record Assistant on 05.11.1992, as the petitioner was the only eligible candidate in the 3rd respondent institution at that point in time. It is submitted that the rule relating to treating each temple as a single unit was introduced by 4 G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000. Prior to the introduction of G.O.Ms.No.888, the G.O.Ms.No.1478, dated 17.11.1986, was in force. 5. It is submitted that the Commissioner of Endowments issued a Memo on 07.04.2000 permitting the Executive Officers to regularise the services of the Employees who have completed five years of service and possess other requisite qualifications if there are sanctioned posts, subject to the statutory limitation of 30% as prescribed under the Act. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.01.2003 to the 3rd respondent, requesting consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion to the cadre of Junior Assistant in the existing vacancy. 6. As the respondents did not pass any orders on the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6688 of 2003, which was disposed of on 17.04.2003 with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner within two months. The 3rd respondent did not pass any orders; as such, W.P.No.8407 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner, and this Court passed interim orders on 25.04.2006. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Endowments accorded permission vide proceedings dated 07.03.2007 to promote the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the existing vacancy; accordingly, the petitioner was promoted as a Junior Assistant on 15.03.2007. The petitioner was required to withdraw the writ petition on being promoted. Accordingly, W.P.No.8407 of 2006 was withdrawn on 13.03.2007. 5 7. It is submitted that several employees working in different temple institutions were promoted in other than their parental institutions before issuance of G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000 and as per the guidelines issued by the E.O., dated 11.02.2011, the cadre of a person shall be protected for the employee who is promoted in an institution other than his parental institution, promotion shall hold good if there is no qualified candidate in that institution. Based on this circular, promotions extended to several employees were upheld by the Commissioner's orders dated 20.04.2013. 8. It is submitted that the petitioner was transferred to the third respondent institution in the year 1988, and there was no other person junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Attender – Cum – Record Assistant at the 3rd respondent institution. As such, the appointment as Record Assistant in the newly created post at the 3rd respondent institution on 05.11.1992, the petitioner is deemed to be a direct recruitee at the 3rd respondent institution as the post was newly created. 9. It is submitted that a show cause notice dated 14.09.2013 was issued by the 4th respondent, referring to the instructions of 1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the petitioner should not be reverted from the post of Junior Assistant. The reason cited for issuance of the show cause notice is that there was no approved post in the cadre of Junior Assistant in the 4th respondent institution. The show cause notice refers to Rule 33 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious 6 Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Service Rules, 2000. The petitioner submitted the explanation; however, respondent No.4 issued the impugned proceedings, reverting the petitioner from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Record Assistant. 10. The respondent No.4 has referred to the promotion issued to the petitioner as being in utter violation of the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Endowments. It is submitted that, as seen from the order of promotion, the 1st reference cited thereto is the recommendation of the Commissioner of Endowments. In such a scenario, the impugned order cannot claim that the Commissioner of Endowments had not issued any instructions for the promotion. 11. The impugned proceedings also refer to the absence of a post of Junior Assistant in the petitioner’s parent institution. It is submitted that the order of promotion dated 15.03.2007 clearly shows that the petitioner was promoted against an existing vacancy. It is further submitted that several similarly placed employees, whose promotions were also proposed to be cancelled, were not disturbed, as the Commissioner of Endowments deemed it prudent not to interfere with their cadre and declined to proceed further in the matter. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Rule 47 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Service Rules, 2000 protects the cadre of employees who were working and holding any office or post as on the date the Rules came into force. 7 12. The learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner was promoted in other than his parent institution, violating Rule 33 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Service Rules, 2000. It is also submitted that the petitioner was transferred to Trikoteswara Swamy Vaari Temple at Kotappakonda, Narsaraopet Mandal, from Mangalagiri on 31.05.2007, and thereafter he was transferred to the 4th respondent temple on 21.08.2012. 13. It is submitted that the 1st respondent had issued instructions to the 4th respondent to cancel the promotion orders on the ground that the petitioner took promotion at other than his parent institution. The 4th respondent has also filed a counter, stating that the 3rd respondent institution is not the parent institution of the petitioner, that there was no available vacancy for a Junior Assistant, and that, as such, the promotion extended to the 3rd respondent institution was rightly revoked. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot seek promotion in an institution other than his parent institution and that any such promotion extended to any employee in any institution other than the parent institution would be contrary to Rule 33 of G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000. 14. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. Perused the material on record. 8 15. The proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 15.03.2007 would refer to the orders issued by the Commissioner of Endowments on 04.03.2007, the petitioner was promoted from Record Assistant to Junior Assistant in the existing vacancy. The proceedings dated 05.11.1992 promoting the petitioner from Attender – Cum - Record Assistant in the newly created post as Record Assistant and abolishing the vacancy of Attender – Cum – Record Assistant would imply that the petitioner was absorbed into the services of the 3rd respondent institution as a Record Assistant, and for all purposes, the petitioner would have to be considered as an employee in the 3rd respondent institution. 16. The 4th respondent cannot assume jurisdiction over the employees of other institutions. The impugned proceedings have been issued duly assuming jurisdiction over the services of the petitioner in the 3rd respondent establishment. Rule 33 of G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000 reads as follows ; Rule 33 : Each institution or Endowment shall be a unit for the purpose of recruitment, seniority and promotion. 17. The concept of each institution as a separate unit was introduced only after the introduction of G.O.Ms. No.888, dated 08.12.2000. As on the date of institution of these Rules, Rule 47 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Service Rules, 2000 would protect the Post held by the employee as on the date of these Rules coming into force. The petitioner ought to be treated as 9 an employee of the 3rd respondent institution. The 4th respondent could not have issued the impugned proceedings by assuming jurisdiction over the employee of a different unit. As such, the impugned proceedings reverting the petitioner deserve to be set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be continued as Junior Assistant in pursuance of the proceedings dated 15.03.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent institution, and the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. Needless to mention,, the respondents shall have to consider the petitioner's service as a Junior Assistant with effect from 15.03.2008 for all purposes, including eligibility for promotion to the next higher cadre. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 08.05.2026 KGM 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.31655 of 2013 Dated 08.05.2026 KGM