IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT] (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY. THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 685 OF 2025 ! Between: 1. Devulapalli Satish Kumar, S/o Bhaskara Sarma, Aged 42 years, R/o D.No.7-172, Satya Gayatri Puram, Sankhavaram Mandalam, Annavaram, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh - 533406. 2. Devulapalli Bhaskara Sarma, Retired Special Grade Purohith, Aged 65 years, R/o D.No. 7-172, Satya Gayatri Puram, Sankhavaram Mandalam, Annavaram, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh - 533406. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary (Endowments), Department of Endowments, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. Deputy Collector cum the Executive Officer Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram, Kakinada District, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the order dated 21-12-2024 bearing R.C.No.E-651071/2024 passed by the 2'^'^ Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and proceedings in Rc. No. A2/ 5926/2009, dated 20.04.2012 and direct the Respondents to appoint the 1st Petitioner as a Third Grade Purohith in Sri Veera Venkata Satyariar%ana Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram, in accordance with the hereditary succession policy and proceedings in Rc. No. A2/ 5926/2009, dated 20.04.2012. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the 2"’'' Respondent to permit the 1®* petitioner to be appointed as Vratha Purohith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PATANJALI PAMIDIGHANTAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No,2: SRI T. BALAJI, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER r / APHC010013282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 685/2025 Between: Devulapalli Satish Kumar and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.PATANJALI PAMIDIGHANTAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.T BALAJI 2.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri P.Patanjali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Balaji, learned counsel for the 2"^^ respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent. 2. Impugning the proceedings vide R.C.No.E-651071/2024, dated 21.04.2024 issued by the 2^^^ respondent, the above writ petition is filed. *» 3. The writ petition was listed on 09.01.2025. Pending the writ petition, the 2^^ petitioner died on 12.01.2025. A memo was filed to that effect. 4. The 2'"'' petitioner, father of the 1®‘ petitioner, retired as a Special Grade Vratha Purohith in the Vratha’s Division of the 2'''^ respondent-Devasthanam on 31.08.2024. The Commissioner, Endowments issued proceedings vide Rc.No.A2/5926/2009, dated 20.04.2012 (Ex.P.3) framing guidelines in the exercise of powers under Section 8 read with Section 13(2) of the A.P.C & H.R.I and Endowments Act 30/87 (as amended by Act 33/2007) reorganizing Vrata Purohit system in the institution. After retirement, the 2"'* petitioner made representations dated 14.09.2024 and 20.10.2024 to the 2"^ respondent requesting the authority to appoint the 1®‘ petitioner as Grade-Ill Purohit in the subject Devastanam. Since the representations were not considered by the respondents, the petitioners filed W.P.No.29147 of 2024. Pending the writ petition, the proceedings impugned (Ex.P.1) were issued by the 2 respondent and hence, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order passed by the 2""^ respondent while rejecting the case of the 1®^ petitioner for appointment, suffers from a lack of valid reasons. The remarks made in the order against the petitioner without any basis or conducting any inquiry. G.O.I\/Is.No.888, Revenue Endowments-1 Department, dated 08.12.2000 has no application to the facts of the present case. Appointment of another son of the 2^^^ petitioner, on merit, has nothing to do with the appointment of the 1®‘ petitioner due to the retirement of the 2'''’ petitioner. However, the 2 respondent without considering all these aspects, passed the orders impugned. nd nd 4. In oppugnation, Sri T.Balaji, learned standing counsel for the 2^*^ respondent, would contend that the 1®* petitioner, previously attended as extra -X 3 nd Vratha Purohit in 2 respondent-Devasthanam. On 11.12.2008, he participated in the Hundi collection count and committed theft of Rs.2,100/-. During the final security check, the security staff recovered the amount from him and thereafter, the then Executive Officer removed the 1®* petitioner and the same was printed in the Newspapers. Learned standing counsel would also submit that the person who does not possess good conduct and character is ineligible to be appointed as Vrata Purohit. Learned standing counsel would also submit that the 2^^ son of the 2'^^ petitioner is already nd working as Vrata Purohit Grade-Ill. Considering all these aspects, the 2 respondent rejected the claim and passed the orders impugned in the writ petition. 5. The point for consideration is : Whether the proceedings impugned vide R.C.No.E-651071/2024 dated 21.12.2024 are legally sustainable? Shorn of the details, there is no dispute that the 2'^^ respondent retired as a Special Grade Vrata Purohit on 31.08.2024 in the 2*^^ respondent institution. The Commissioner, Endowments Department by proceedings Ex.P.3 dated 20.04.2012, framed a scheme regarding the appointment of Vrata Puroits in the 2^'^ respondent institution. 6. Clause (1) of the scheme prescribes “Age limit”. It further deals with the appointment and retirement of Vrata Purohits. Clause (1) which is relevant is extracted hereunder: 7. 1. Age limit: The purohit who attains ‘the age of 70 years’, shall retire from service. The post fallen vacant due to such retirement shall be filled up by effecting up- gradation to the senior most purohit in the feeder category and the family member (sons in the 1®‘ instance, if there is no son - sons of daughter 4 (grandson), if no grandson is there, then the husband of daughter) of the retired purohit shall be given appointment in the consequent last grade vacancy. If no family member is available, 50% of monthly remuneration as on date of retirement shall be paid as financial assistance to the retired purohit out of the 30% of remuneration amount. And 30% of the remuneration being paid to retired purohit shall be paid to his spouse every month, if retired purohit demises.” A perusal of the extracted clause would indicate that purohit who attains 70 years, shall be retired from service. The post that falls vacant shall be filled up by the senior most purohit in the feeder category and the family member. The words “and the family members” in Clause (1) gain significance. Clause (1) makes it clear that after the retirement of the Vrata Purohit, the post shall be filled up with upgradation to the senior most purohit in the feeder category. The clause further enables the post to be filled up by family members and in fact, such a practice is in vogue as per both the learned counsel. 8. 9. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointment of another son of the 2"^ petitioner has nothing to do with the request made by the 2^^ petitioner to the petitioner since the appointment of another son of the 2^^ petitioner was in pursuance of the proceedings vide Rc.No.J1/2633/2019,dated 11.07.2020,on merit. St The other ground for rejection is alleged misconduct by the 1 petitioner. When a stigma is attributed against a person, the plea should be supported by sufficient documentary proof. An averment was made in Para No.11 of the counter-affidavit about an incident that took place on 11.12.2008 i.e. committing of theft of Rs.2,100/- by the 1®* petitioner. However, no material is placed before this Court to substantiate the said contention. Even according to the Writ Proceedings Rules, the supporting document should be annexed along with the counter-affidavit. A newspaper report is inadmissible in 10. V % 5 evidence it cannot be relied upon to attribute stigma on an individual. In the absence of a document, mere making an averment in the counter-affidavit, this Court will not appreciate the said contention. When such an averment was made regarding the character of the petitioner, at least an opportunity should have been provided to the petitioner. Without providing an opportunity, branding the petitioner as a culprit, vitiated the proceedings impugned. The authority shall keep in mind the consequences before passing an order levelling some malpractice against any individual. 11. After retirement, the 2^^ petitioner made a representation requesting the 2^^ respondent authority to consider the case of the 1®* petitioner to appoint the 1®^ petitioner Vrata Purohit as per the scheme. Thus, making another application by the 1®* petitioner for the appointment, at this juncture, as per the scheme does not arise. When the 2"^^ petitioner exercised the option and petitioner, the order of the 2 12. nd St requested the authorities to appoint the 1 respondent that the 2'^'^ petitioner granted pension didn’t arise. At this juncture, learned counsel for the 2'^'^ respondent would submit that the pension was sanctioned to the 2'^'^ petitioner after retirement as per the scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2 petitioner during his lifetime represented to the 2^^ respondent that he is not interested in receiving the pension. He would also submit that, if an order is passed selecting the 1®‘ petitioner, the 1®' petitioner or his family members will repay the pension amount to the institution, so paid, to the institution. 13. nd This court is conscious that this court is not acting as Appellate authority against the order passed by the 2^^ respondent. The decision-making process is vitiated, for the aforementioned reasons, and is contrary to the scheme and 14. 6 proceedings impugned are liable reexamination by the authority. in violation of principles of natural justice, the be said aside. The order impugned requires to , the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside order impugned vide R.C.No.E-651071/2024 dated 21.12.2024 (ExP.1). The matter is remitted to the teamed 2"^ respondent. The learned fresh reasoned order keeping in view the scheme Vrata Purohit in the T Given the discussion supra 15. the nd respondent shall pass a regarding the appointment of the 1" petitioner as institution, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within tw ( respondent months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs , shall stand closed. sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any As a Sd/- U.SRI DEVI ASSISTANT; REGISTRAR SE^JfTOFRCER //TRUE COPY// To, (Endowments), Department of Endowments, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 1. The Principal Secretary State of Andhra Pradesh 2. The Deputy Collector cum Satyanarayana Andhra Pradesh. 3. One CC to Sri Patanjali Pamidighantam, Advocate [OPUC] 4 One CC to Sri T. Balaji, SC for EndowmentsIOPUC) 5. Two CCS to GP tor Services- II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies. the Executive Officer, Sri Veera Venkata Kakinada District, Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram ssb r I ■f HIGH COURT DATED:06/02/2025 ORDER X 11FEB>25 Current Section ^ ni WP.No.685 of 2025 <£. -i-. lo ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS