V APHC010069922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) J r.* TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 3771 OF 2025 Between: K Haranath Reddy, S/o. Venkata Rami Reddy, aged 56 years Director of Sri Venkateswara Gosamrakshanasala, TTD, Tirupati, R/o. D.No. 3-1-55/1,4TH Cross East, Vidya Nagar Colony, Tirupati, Tirupati District. Occ ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary Endowments Department, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 3. The Joint Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Tirupati, Tirupati District. 4. The Deputy Executive Officer, T.T.D., Tirupati, Tirupati District. A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, ...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 Orders or directions more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the rd order issued by the 3 Respondent vide Memo, ROC.N0.DAI-/108021 (31)74/2024 in selectively suspending the Petitioner from service on the ground of failing to monitor, supervising the Q lines and the Pilgrim influx invoking Rule 3 of A.P CS Conduct Rules, Rule 8 of CCA Rules r/w Rule 4 of TTD Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1060, Revenue (Endowments-1) 24.10.1989 despite the Petitioner having no jurisdiction on the Law and Order issue Department, Dated as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, contrary to the allocation of work without notice, non-application of mind, selective law of the land, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same by directing the Respondents to reinstate the suspension contrary to the 16 AND 21 of Petitioner into S.V.Gosamrakshanasala, TTD, Tirupati, with all consequential benefits. service as Director, lA NO: 1 OF 202fi 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 3RD Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner forthwith S.V.Gosamrakshanasala, TTD, Tirupati, by suspending the operation of the Order issued by the 2"^ Respondent dated ROC.No.DA1-/108021(31)/4/2024 in the interest of justice pending disposal of the main writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2n9R Between: 1. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Tirupati, Tirupati District. 2. The Joint Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Tirupati District. 3. The Deputy Executive Officer, T.T.D., Tirupati, Tirupati District. as Director, 09.01.2025 vide Memo, rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, ...Petitioners AND 1. K Haranath Reddy, S/o. Venkata Rami Reddy, aged 56 years, Occ Director of Sri Venkateswara Gosamrakshanasala, TTD, Tirupati, R/o. D.No. 3-1-55/1,4TH Cross East, Vidya Nagar Colony, Tirupati, Tirupati District. ...Respondent/ Petitioner in 2. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. ...Respondent/Respondents 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 vacate the interim orders passed in W.P.No.3771 of 2015 dt. 14.2.2025 and pass* lA NO: 3 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 Commissioner of Enquiry to furnish a copy of deposition of the Writ Petition made before the Commissioner of Enquiry on 20.03.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI C SRINIVASA BABA The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Petition No.3771 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri G.Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C. Srinivasa Baba, learned Standing Counsel for TTD, appearing for the respondents. Petitioner essentially assails the orders passed by the 3^'^ respondent vide Memo.Roc.No.DA1-108021 (31 )/4/2024, dated 09.01.2025, in suspending him from service, as without jurisdiction, besides illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 2. Petitioner is discharging duties as Director of Sri Venkateswara Gosamrakshana Shala (for short, “S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala”), which is under the jurisdiction of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (“TTD”)-2 respondent. The post of Director of S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala is in the cadre of Joint Director (A.H.) in Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Department. Later, the Government has decided to upgrade aforesaid post to that of Additional Director (A.H.) in the same Department in the scale of pay of Rs.66,330/- to Rs.1.08,330/-. In order to fill-up suitable candidate to the post of Director in the up-graded post and as the said up graded post is not covered under Annexure-ll of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Employees Service Rules, 1989 (“the Rules”), issued under 3. nd CGR, J. W.P. No.3771 of 2025 G.O.Ms.No.1060 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 24.10.1989, Government vide G.O.Ms.No.442 Revenue (Endowments-NI ) Department, dated 05.05.2020, constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC”). The DPC in the meeting held on 17.06.2020 has recommended the name of the petitioner, who was in the cadre of Joint Director (A.H) in Animal Husbandry Department for the post of Director of S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala as he possessed the requisite qualifications. Based on such recommendation, vide G.O.Rt.No.543 Revenue (Endowments-Ill) Department, dated 25.06.2020, Government has issued orders temporarily promoting him as Additional Director and continued as Director of S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala in the scale of pay as mentioned above. Further, the Executive Officer of TTD has been requested to take necessary steps accordingly. Petitioner since then has been discharging duties as Director of S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala. Petitioner and other officers were deputed to supervise issuance of Slotted Sarva Darshanam (“SSD”) tokens to pilgrims at Dr.Rama Naidu Municipal High School, Bairagipatteda Counter, Tirupati, in connection with ensuing Vaikunta Ekadasi-2025 on 10.01.2025 (Friday), Vaikunta Dwadasi on 11.01.2025 (Saturday) and Mukkoti Pradakshina for 10 days from 10.01.2025 to 19.01.2025. Unfortunately, on 08.01.2025, due to heavy rush and gathering of pilgrims and lack of control at aforesaid Centre, on account of a stampede in queue area, several pilgrims sustained injuries 4. CGR, J. W.P No.3771 of 2025 t! and some of them succumbed. Holding petitioner alone to be responsible for monitoring and supervising the queue lines and the pilgrims' influx, he has been placed under suspension by impugned proceedings, dated 09.01.2025, stated to be issued by Joint Executive Director of TTD. Later, Government has appointed Commission of Enquiry vide G.O.Ms.No.16 General Administration (SC.I) Department, dated 22.01.2025, to enquire into the incident and identify the cause and reasons for stampede and consequences thereof. Besides, Crime vide F.I.R.No.7 of 2025 of Tirupathi East Police Station, dated 09.01.2025, also was registered for the offences punishable under Section 194 of BNSS. Though there were other senior officers, who were supervising along with petitioner, petitioner alone came to be placed under suspension and that too by the orders of Joint Executive Officer, who is incompetent to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. This Court initially passed interim order, dated 14.02.2025, suspending the impugned orders. The respondent TTD initially filed counter-affidavit attested on 21.03.2025 and subsequently filed vacate stay petition along with counter-affidavit, seeking to vacate the aforesaid interim order. 6. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the impugned suspension order has been passed at the instance of Executive Officer, but, not Joint CGR, J. W.P. No.3771 of 2025 Executive Officer and as Executive Officer is the appointing authority, has all powers and within his jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings besides passing the impugned suspension order . Further, the counter affidavit also tried to deal with various other factual aspects with respect to happening of incident and petitioner being placed in the helm of supervision at the counter, where incident occurred and also various other steps taken by TTD for ensuring smooth and hassle-free access and distribution of tokens to the pilgrims on those auspicious days. 7. Petitioner has filed reply-affidavit refuting the contentions made in the counter-affidavit. In the reply-affidavit, petitioner has raised yet another jurisdictional ground contending that as the Government is the appointing authority in respect of Director of S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala, even if the suspension order is treated to be passed by the Executive Officer, but not Joint Executive Officer as contended in the counter-affidavit, still the order suffers from jurisdictional error inasmuch as it is only the State Government, which is competent to inrtiate any disciplinary action. 8. As new ground has been raised, respondents TTD has filed reply- affidavit on 19.07.2025 refuting aforesaid contention and tried to justify that in terms of Rules, issued under Sections 97 r/w.153 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, “the Endowments Act”), vide G.O.Ms.No.SII Revenue CGR, J. W.P No. 3771 of 2025 (Endowments-I) Department, dated 09.04.1990, in particular. Rule 220, the Executive Officer of TTD shall have power to suspend any of the office holders and servants of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, and therefore. as petitioner is office holder working under TTD, rightly. Executive Officer exercised the jurisdiction. It is also stated that as petitioner has been appointed on direct recruitment as Gosamrakshana Superintendent in the year 2003 and ever since he has been working in S.V.Gosamrakshan a Shala and for all purposes, he is employee of TTD and that Government has no nexus or control on his recruitment and continuation as such. therefore, even if petitioner came to be promoted through DPC conducted by Government, except for such promotion, for all purposes it is only the TTD is the appointing authority, but, not the State Government. Petitioner has never worked or been in the cadre of Joint Director (A.H) in Animal Husbandry Department, therefore, treating him as Additional Director (A.H) in Government, qualifying for appointment to the post of Director Gosamrakshana Shala does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily addressed this Court on 9. jurisdictional aspect. Though initially petitioner has taken stand that the impugned suspension order has been issued by the Joint Executive Officer, who is not the proper officer or appointing authority, and that as it is not the decision of the Executive Officer, the impugned suspension order suffers from jurisdictional error, later in reply, petitioner has raised a new 6 CGR, J. W.P No.3771 of 2025 ground that even the Executive Officer is atso incompetent to issue the suspension order as he is not the appointing authority rather it is the Government, therefore, the suspension is without jurisdiction. Leaned counsel has confined his submissions to the jurisdictional aspect alone and has not addressed on merits of tbe matter. Buttressing aforesaid argument, learned counsel has submitted that petitioner came to be promoted through DPC held on 17.06.2020, which having considered over all assessment of service record and work done by him, recommended for promotion to the post of Director of S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala from the cadre of Joint Director (A.H) to the cadre of Additional Director (A.H), therefore, in consequence of the same. Government has issued orders vide G.O.Rt.NO.443, dated 25.06.2020, promoting petitioner temporarily as Additional Director (A.H) and continuation as Director of S.V. Gosamrakshana Shala, therefore, for all purposes, it is the Government which is the appointing authority to the post of Director and therefore. Government alone has power to either place him under suspension or proceed with disciplinary action. The aforesaid orders since are issued in terms of Section 106(1) and Section 107(4) of the Endowments Act, it is to be construed that the Government is the appointing authority. Per contra, refuting aforesaid submissions, learned Standing Counsel for respondents TTD, has laid much emphasis on the aspect of petitioner being initially recruited and appointed as Gosamrakshana 10. CGR, J. W.P. No.3771 of 2025 XT Superintendent in the S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala in the year 2003 and that all through his services are under the control and regulation of TTD, therefore, mere promotion of petitioner based on DPC constituted and consequential orders of Government would not make any difference with respect to the appointing authority. Since the S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala is one of the arms of TTD being under its control and regulation, all employees of said institution would be governed by the Rules made under Sections 97 r/w.153 of the Endowments Act, issued under G.O.Ms.No.311, dated 09.04.1990, therefore, in terms of Rule 220 of the said Rules, the Executive Officer is competent to place under suspension any of the employees, who are office holders and servants of institutions of TTD. Further, it is also contended that TTD Employee Service Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1060, dated 24.10.1989, specifically provided for, particularly, in Rule 8, qualifications to be possessed by officers, who are appointed by the Government in terms of Sections 106 r/w.107 of the Endowments Act, inasmuch as, the qualifications claimed by petitioner i.e. Additional Director (A.H) is conspicuously absent in the said Rules, it cannot be said that he is appointee of State Government and not the Executive Officer of TTD. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.V. Srinivasa Sastry v. Comptroller and Auditor GeneraP to contend that even dehors Article 311(1) of the ' (1993) 1 see 419 8 W.P No.3771 of 2025 Constitution of India, which postulates that a person who is member of civil service of Union or State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed, any superior authority, who can be held to be the controlling authority, can initiate such proceeding. 11. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions of both the learned counsel. The issue raised in the writ petition in a narrow compass is, as to whether who is the appointing authority qua petitioner for the post of Director of S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala and whether the Executive Officer 12. of the TTD has power and jurisdiction to place the petitioner under suspension either being appointing authority or disciplinary authority. Section 106 of the Endowments Act deals with appointment of various officers, which is subject to the qualifications specified for such appointments in terms of Section 107. For better appreciation of the contentions raised, it is opt to refer Sections 106 and 107 of the Endowments Act and they read as follows: 13. “Section 106. Appointment of Executive Officer, Joint Executive Officer, Special Grade Deputy Executive Officer and Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer etc.- (1) Subject ot the provisions of Section 107. the Government shall appoint an Executive Officer, a Joint Executive Officer, a Special Grade Deputy Executive Officer, a Financial Advisor, a Chief Accounts Officer, a Chief Engineer, a Chief Security Officer and any other Officer. (2) Every officer appointed under sub-section (1), shall be a person professing Hindu Religion. (3) The conditions of the service of the officers appointed under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be determined by the Government. I 9 CGR, J. W.P. No.3771 of 2025 (4) Every officer appointed under sub-section (1), shall be a whole time Officer of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and shall not undertake any work unconnected with his office without the permission of the Committee. (5) Any officer appointed under sub-section (1) shall be paid out of the funds of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams such salary as may, from time to time, be fixed by the Government, having regard to the pay to which he is eligible in the service of which he was a member before his appointment as such. Section 107. Qualifications for appointment of Executive Officer, Joint Executive Officer, Special Grade Executive Officer, Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer etc. - (1) A person to be appointed as Executive Officer shall be one who is holding or has held a post of the District Collector or a post not lower in rank than that of a District Collector in any other service in the State. (2) A person to be appointed as Joint Executive Officer shall be one who is holding or has held a post of a Joint District Collector or a post not lower in rank than that of a Joint District Collector in any other service in the State. (emphasis by this Court) (3) A person to be appointed as Special Grade Deputy Executive Officer shall be one who has been holding or has held a post of a Deputy Executive Officer in the service of the Tirumala-Tirupathi Devasthanams for a period not less than three years. (4) A person to be appointed as a Financial Advisor, and Chief Accounts Officer, a Chief Engineer, a Chief Security Officer and any other Officer shall be one possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed. (emphasis by this Court) 14. The Rules, 1989 are made in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 35, 106, 107 r/w.153 of the Endowments Act, specifically applicable to employees of the TTD. The Rules, 1989 govern all the employees of TTD except to the Officers and staff taken on contract basis and on deputation from Government or other organisations. Further, Rule 4 also specifies that these Rules shall also apply to employees in respect of State Government working with TTD, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the Act and Rules specified therein which apply to the / ( 10 CGR, j W.P. No.3771 of 2025 Government employees. Further, Rule 5 specifies that the Executive Officer shall be appointing authority in respect of all posts except the posts for which the Government is the appointing authority. Rule 8 provides that the Officers appointed as Executive Officer or Joint Executive Officer shall be governed by the terms and conditions of service to which they belong and further also provides that the requisite qualifications for persons to be appointed as Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer/Chief Engineer/Chief Security Officer/Special Officer. Rule 8 reads as under: The Officers, appointed as Executive Officer or Joint Executive Officer shall be governed by the terms and conditions of service to which they belong. A person to be appointed as financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer shall possess the following qualifications: Experience of not less than five years in Indian Audit & Accounts Service or its equivalent, experience in other service. Experience of not less than five years as Head of a Department or in post equal to or higher than that of a Deputy Secretary in the Finance Department of the State Government or equivalent experience in any other equivalent post or Experience as a Chartered Accountant for at least 10 years. The officer may be taken on deputation from the State Government or Government of India or appointed on a contract basis for a period of three years. By promotion from the post of Additional Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer and most have put in not less than 5 years of service as Additional Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer. {Inserted by G.O.Ms No.903, Revenue (Endts.lll) Dept., Dt.25-08-2010} Appointment to the post of Chief Engineer shall be made as follows: By deputation of a Chief Engineer from the State Government By promotion from the cadre of Superintending Engineer in TTD Service with not less than 3 years of service. Chief Security Officer shall be appointed by deputation of a Superintendent of Police from the Government of Andhra Pradesh. 8.(i) (ii) (1) (2) (4) (5) M ill (2) (iv) M The appointment to the post of Special Officer shall be made as follows: by deputation of an officer of the rank of Deputy Secretary, Government of India or Joint Secretary of the State Government. He shall profess Hindu Religion and must have working knowledge of Telugu. (G.O.Ms.No. 764, Revenue (Endts.lll) Dept, dt. 28-9-2004) (c) *15. A conspectus of aforesaid substantive provisions and Rules, the Government has been bestowed with power to make appointment of Executive Officer, Joint Executive Officer, Special Grade Deputy Officer,, CGR, J W.P. No,3771 of 2025 0 Financial Advisor, Chief Accounts Officer, Chief Engineer, Chief Security Officer and any other Officer to the services of TTD, whose qualifications are set out in Section 107 of the Endowments Act. The conditions of service of such officers appointed are to be determined by Government. The Service Rules mentioned above will apply to employees of TTD with exception to Officers working on contract basis/deputation from the Government or other organisations, who essentially will be governed by the service conditions of their parent departments, inasmuch as those contract basis/deputation officers from the Government or other Departments are concerned, they shall under the aegis of the respective departments and the Government would be the appointing authority and the regular TTD employees are concerned, the Executive Officer is the appointing authority. Further, Government has also framed Rules under G.O.Ms.No.311, dated 09.04.1990, in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 97 r/w.153 of the Endowments Act, by which, the Executive Officer appointed under Section 106(1) of the Endowments Act have been assigned with specific powers and duties under Chapter-XXVIll, covering Rules 216 to 223, in particular. Rule 220, bestows power to suspend any office holders and servants of TTD. The said Rule reads as under; “220. The Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams shall have the power to suspend any of the office holders and servants of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.” 12 CGR, j W.P. No.3771 of 2025 16. In this background, it has to be seen and tested as to whether petitioner is appointed and regulated as employee of TTD or he has been appointed in terms of Sections 106 r/w.107 of the Endowments Act by the Government. 17. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been recruited and appointed as Gosamrakshana Superintendent in S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala in the year 2003, and ever since, he has been continuing there in various posts. He also came to be appointed as Director eventually. He has been under control and regulated by the Service Rules, those applicable to employees of TTD issued under G.O.Ms.No.1060 dated 24.10.1989. Petitioner now claims that Executive Officer has addressed letter, dated 18.05.2020 to Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, for convening of DPC, which has been constituted vide G.O.Rt.No.442 Revenue (Endowments-Ill) Department, dated 05.05.2020, and in the said proceeding, it has been categorically stated that as the post of Director, S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala has been upgraded to that of Additional Director (A.H.) and that there is no post equivalent to that of Additional Director (A.H.) in terms of Annexure-ll of Service Rules, request has been made to treat the said upgraded post to be fallen within “any other Officer” as envisaged in Section 106(1) of the Endowments Act, thereby treating the Government to be appointing authority and basing on the same, later DPC came to be constituted, petitioner has been promoted 13 CGR, J. W.P No 3771 of 2025 f in the cadre of Additional Director (A.H) for the purpose of continuing him as Director, S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala, for all Government, which is the appointing authority, but not Executive Officer. purposes, it is the 18. As seen from Annexure-ll to Service Rules, in particular VIII, deals with S.V Dairy Farm, which reads as under: “VIII. S.V. DAIRY FARM Name of the Post SI. Method Recruitment 1. By promotion of Qualifications No. 1. a) Director in the cadre of Director Husbandry) By promotion from the category of Deputy Director: Joint (Animal (i) Must possess a Post- Graduate Degree Veterinary Science. Must have not less than two years service in the cadre of Deputy Director. By loan of services from persons belonging to the cadre of Joint Director in Animal Husbandry Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh. By promotion from the post Gosamrakshana Superintendent (in the cadre of Assistant Director in Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Department) (ii) Must have completed two (2) years of service as Gosamrakshna Superintendent in the cadre of Asst. Director (Animal Husbandry) Must possess Post Graduate Degree Veterinary Science. in (ii) 2. By loan of service b) Deputy Director (the post will not be in operation) By promotion (i) of (iii) in (inserted Revenue Dt.23.06.2007) By promotion from the category from Farm Manager (Veterinary) with 6 years service in the cadre of Farm Manager. Must possess a degree in veterinary science from a recognized university. Preference will be given to persons possessing a post by G.O.Ms.No.872 Dept., (Endts.lll) c) Farm Manager Veterinary Grade-I (in the cadre of Assistant Director (Animal Husbandry) (one post will not be in operation) By promotion (i) (ii) 14 CGn , W.P No.3771 of 2025 graduate veterinary science. (Subs, by G.O.Ms.No.487, Revenue (Endts.lll) Dept., dt.18.06.1999) 1. M.V.Sc. in Dairy Science/Dairy Cattle Nutrition/Animal Genetics and Breeding from any one of the recognised Universities. 2. Training in cross-breeding and sire evaluation under tropical conditions Government-recognised Institute/ Board. 3. Must have passed Animal Husbandry Departmental tests (with books) 4. Must have passed Accounts test for Executive Officers (with books) degree in 2. Gosamrakshna Superintendent (in the cadre of Asst. Director in A.P. Animal Husbandry Department) 1. By direct recruitment from any Experience: Minimum of five years of service in the cadre of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Dept). Out of which at least two years of service in any recognised Dairy Farms run by Central/State Autonomous bodies. Age: Maximum thirty four years. Maximum age limit is relaxable upto a maximum of five years for those who have put in an experience of five years or more. 2. By loan of service By loan of services from the A.P. Animal Husbandry Department in the cadre of Assistant Director with the qualifications prescribed for the direct recruitment. (G.O.Ms.No.400, (Endts.lll) dt.16.03.2003) Revenue Department, 19. The post of Director in the cadre of Joint Director (A.H) is to be filled up by promotion from the category of Deputy Director. The post of Deputy Director has to be filled up by promotion from the persons amongst Gosamrakshana Superintendent. Petitioner initially was appointed as Gosamrakshana Superintendent by direct recruitment, which is a feeder category for the post of Deputy Director, which again is a feeder category 15 CGR, J W P No.3771of 2025 to the post of Director. Indisputably, petitioner has been initially appointed as Gosamrakshana Superintendent in the year 2003 and later has been promoted as Deputy Director in first level and Director in second level. Now, it is stated that for the purpose of considering his promotion to the post of Director, by letter, dated 18.05.2020, the TTD itself has addressed a letter to the government that in view of upgradation of post of Director of S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala, inasmuch as, there is no such post equivalent to Additional Director cadre in terms of Annexure-ll to the Service Rules, request has been made to fill up the said post of Director by construing the post to be covered under “any other Officer” envisaged in Section 106(1) of the Endowments Act. The Government later has constituted DPC consisting four members, viz., (1) Sri J.S.V. Prasad, IAS, Special Chief Secretary to Government (Endowments) Department, as Chairman; (2) Smt. V.Usha Rani, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Lands) Department; (3) Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar, IAS, Secretary to Government, G.A. (Services) Department; and (4) Sri Anil Kumar Singhal, IAS, Executive Officer, TTD, Convenor, as members, who recommended the candidature of the petitioner for temporary promotion as Additional Director (A.H) and consequently, by G.O.Rt.No.443, dated 25.06.2020, he has been temporarily promoted and continued as Director, S.V.GosamrakshanaShala, with further instructions to Executive Officer, TTD, to take necessary action in the matter. 16 CGR, 0 W.P. No.3771 012025 The aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the petitioner though 20. appears to be convincing at first blush, a close scrutiny of the same, goes to show that the initial appointment of petitioner being as Gosamrakshana Superintendent in TTD, by direct recruitment and having spent considerable length of service being regulated by Service Rules and even that Rule (III) of Annexure-ll of Service Rules clearly provided for the post of Director which petitioner has been discharging, only in order to mitigate the difficulties in balancing the upgraded cadre. Government had step in for effecting temporary promotion and continuation as Director, mere recommendation of DPC to promote petitioner to the cadre of Additional Director, for continuing him as Director, S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala, which cadre do not exist, ipso facto, does not amount to petitioner failing under any other Officer” envisaged under Section 106(1) of the Endowments Act, as he continues to be with TTD for all purposes governed by its Service Rules. Appointment of any other Officer, which is specified in Section 106, is always subject to qualifications prescribed for such appointment under Section 107. Sub-section (4) of Section 107, specifies the qualifications one should possess to be appointed as Financial Advisor/Chief Accounts Officer/Chief Security Officer and any other Officer as may be prescribed and “prescribed” in turn has been defined in Section 2(19) to be by way of Rules. The Service Rules which are made in terms of Sections 106 and 107 of the Endowments Act, prescribe the 17 CGR, J. WP. No 3771 of 2025 0 However, Rule 8 only prescribes the qualifications under Rule 8. qualifications for Financial Advisor/Chief Accounts Officer/Chief Security Officer, but it is conspicuously silent as it does not prescribe any such qualifications for “any other Officer”. In view of the same, it cannot be said that as petitioner has been granted temporary promotion in the cadre of Additional Director (A.H), he would have to be construed to be falling under the expression “any other Officer” under Section 106, to claim Government to be the appointing authority. Unless the qualifications are prescribed as enumerated under Section 107(4), question of any one claiming under Section 106 to be “any other Officer” does not arise. Merely because either the letter addressed by the TTD or the subsequent constitution of DPC and the consequential orders, proceeded on the basis that it is the Government, who has to promote petitioner to the cadre of Additional Director, for him to be eligible for continuing as Director of S.V.Gosamrakshana Shala, the same would not legalize the appointment of petitioner to be falling under Section 106 of the Endowments Act. If a statute provided for prescription of specific qualifications to hold any particular post by way of Rules, unless the same are notified in the manner envisaged, any such appointment made would be illegal, therefore, even if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted. the temporary promotion and continuation of petitioner as Director by Government, is illegal. 18 CGR. j W,P No.3771 012025 21. There is yet another angle to examine. The DPC also consisted of Executive Officer as Member and Convenor which recommended petitioner for promotion in the cadre of Additional Director (A.H) and later resulting in Government issuing temporary promotion orders in order to continue as Director. As Executive Officer is also part of the aforesaid process, he is also instrumental in promotion and placing and continuing petitioner as Director, therefore, it cannot be said that Executive Officer cannot be construed as appointing authority. In normal course but for the difficulty that arose in continuing petitioner as Director in the cadre of Additional Director as he was recognized only to be in the cadre of Joint Director, it was Executive Officer who was competent to effect promotions to the said post. Even as per Rule 220 of the Rules, 1990, the Executive Officer has been delegated the powers by Board to exercise powers of suspension on all office holders and servants, therefore, he is amply within powers. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P.V. Srinivasa Sastry"' while dealing with 22. question as to whether initiation of departmental enquiry by authority lower than appointing authority, but superior to delinquent would amount to vitiating proceedings, in the context of Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India held as follows; “4. Article 311(1) says that no person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds civil post under the Union or a State “shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which CGR, J. • W.P No.3771 of 2025 he was appointed”. Whether this the guarantee that guarantee includes within itself initiatoH K .u disciplinary proceeding should be inibated only by the appointing authority? It is well known that of several stages: the initiation of the proceeding, the inquiry in respect of the charges levelled against that delinquent officer and the final order which fs passed after the conclusion of the inquiry. Article 311(1) guarantees that ch ^ member of a civil service of the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that oLn fh f appointed. But Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority. However, it is open to Union of India or a Lte prescribing that even the proceeding against any delinquent officer shall be initiated by an officer not fnron'f to the appointing authority. Any such rule shall not be amnnnfr ^11 of the Constitution because it will providing an additional safeguard or protection to the ^ absence of any such rule, this right guarantee does not flow from Article 311 of the Constitution. It need not be pointed out that initiation of a departmental proceeding per se does not visit the officer concerned with any evil consequence^ and the framers of the Constitution did not consider it necessary to guarantee even that to holders of civil posts under the Union of Government. At the same time this will not give right to authorities having the same rank as that of the officer against whom proceeding is to be initiated to take a decision whether any such proceeding should be initiated. In absence of a rule any superior authority who can be held to be the controlling authority, can initiate such proceeding.” or 23. Even in the present case, as discussed above, petitioner was initially appointed as Gosamrakshana Superintendent, by the Executive and later promoted as Deputy Director and Executive Officer. It is only when his services Director, in the existing cadre, which later Officer as Director by the very same were to be continued as came to be upgraded. Government had to step in. The Executive Officer is aiways superior authority over the post of Director. Admittediy, there are no Rules in place prescribing that any proceedings against delinquent should be initiated by i 20 CGR, j W.P. No.3771 of 2025 appointing authority only. As Hon’ble Apex Court clearly expressed that i the absence of such Rule in any superior authority can be held to be controHing authority to initiate the proceedings, this Court is convinced that the Executive Officer in present case is within his jurisdiction in exercising the powers of suspension. 24. As both learned counsels have only addressed on the aspect of jurisdiction, but not on merits of the matter, as this Court has arrived at definitive conclusion that for all purposes it is the Executive Officer, who is the appointing authority qua petitioner, and that the decision to place petitioner under suspension being that of Executive Officer, though communicated in the name of the Joint Executive Officer, there is no jurisdictional error and therefore, this Court finds no merit in the case. 25. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if in this case shall stand closed. any. Sd/- N. NAGAIVIP/IA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRI. G TURIN KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI. C SRINIVASA BABA Advocate jOPUC] 3. Two CCS to GP FOR SERVICES II High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies. AL HIGH COURT DATED:22/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 3771 OF 2025 4f §f H AUG 2025 ^^s^^rent SectjoftX^ DISMISSING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS