Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010335252024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 16954/2024 Between: 1. C LAKSHMAIAH, S/O C.SUBBANNA, 51 YRS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, R/O 1-156, VEMPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS), VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA-521225. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ or 2 order or directions more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not affecting the promotions of the petitioner by way of transfer to the post of Executive Officer Grade-Ill against available vacancies as illegal, highly objectionable, contrary to law, discriminative in nature, official bias and unitra vires besides unconstitutinonal ass well violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of India, in the interest of justice and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the Post of Executive Officer Grade-Ill in the existing vacany, in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 05.08.2024 passed in I.A.No 1 of 2024 in W.P.No.16954 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CORPUS JURIS LAW PANEL LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS 2. GP FOR SERVICES II 3 WRIT PETITION NO: 16441/2024 Between: 1. B. BHASKARA RAO,, S/O. LATE KONDALA RAO, AGE 54 YEARS, OCC - JUNIOR ASSISTANT, UNDRAJAVARAM GROUP TEMPLES, UNDRAJAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. KOLIA SRINIVAS,, S/O. LATE SUBBARAO, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC- JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SALADIVARI CHOULTRY, PALAKOLLU TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. K.V.SIVARAMA RAJU,, S/O. LATE KVG KRISHNAM RAJU, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC - JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SRI VISWASWARASWAMY TEMPLE, NRK AGRAHARAM, BHIMAVARAM TOWN, UNDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. B. SURYA RAO,, S/O. LATE RAMALINGESWARA SWAMY, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC- JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SRI RAJAGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE, NARASAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. B.S.R.K. ANANDA RAO,, S/O. LATE SOMAIAH, AGE 42 YEARS, OCC - JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SRI ANNAVASTRA VYDYAVIDYADANA SAMAJAM, ELURU TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, 4 GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, deciaring the action of the 2nd respondent jn not appointing the petitioners as Executive Officer Gr-lil, Endowment Department by transfer of service from the cadre of Junior Assistant Endowment Institutions in West Godavari District as per GOMs No. 262 dated 20.05.2002 as bad, illegai, arbitrary, and vioiative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequentiy direct the respondents to grant appointment by transfer of service as E.O. Gr-lil to the petitioners w.e.f. 05.05.2024 and to grant all consequentiai monitory and service benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 16.05.2024 without reference to Ban GOMs No. 1997 dated 18.10.2005 and pass s Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D V SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO: 22986/2024 Between: 5 1. B SURYA RAO, S/O. LATE RAMALINGESWARA SWAMY, AGE 56 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SRI RAJAGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE, NARASAPUR TOWN AMD MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. K.V.SIVARAMA RAJU,, S/O. LATE K.V.G KRISHNAM RAJU AGE 55 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SRI VISWESWARASWAMY TEMPLE, NRP AGRAHARAM, UNDI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. B. BHASKARA RAO,, S/O. LATE KONDALA RAO, AGE 54 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT, UNDRAJAVARAM GROUP TEMPLES, UNDRAJAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT I 4. KOLIA SRINIVAS,, S/O. LATE SUBBARAO, AGE 50 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SALADIVARI CHOULTRY, PALAKOLLU TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. B.S.R.K. ANANDA, RAO, S/O. LATE SOMAIAH, AGE 42 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SRI ANNAVASTRA VYDYAVIDYADANA SAMAJAM, ELURU TOWN AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 6 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings in Rc. No. E2/15021/ 256/2024 dated 06.09.2024 rejecting the case of the petitioners for appointment by transfer of service from the cadre of Junior Assistant as E.O. Gr-lll as per GOMs No. 262 dated 20.05.2002 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, without application of mind, unreasoned, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents to grant appointment by transfer of service as E.O. Gr-lll to the petitioners w.e.f. 05.05.2024 and to grant all consequential monitory and service benefits and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to direct the 2 nd respondent to reconsider the petitioners representation dated 16.05.2024 without reference to ban GO 1997 dated 18.10.2005 by suspending the operation of impugned proceedings in Rc. No. E2/15021/ 256/2024 dated 06.09.2024 and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file the additional document and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the 7 petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No.2 in the writ petition WP.No.22986 of 2024 to file counter affidavit in the above write petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D V SASIDHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO: 9293/2025 Between: 1. M RAMESH, S/O. M. SATYANARAYANA, JR. ASSISTANT, ENDOWMENT DEPT., SRI DURGA LAXMANESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE, LAXAMANESWARAM VILLAGE, NARSAPURAM (M) W.G. DIST, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST., A.P., 2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPT., STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GOLLAPUDI, KRISHNA DIST, A.P.-521 225. ...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 topleased to issue a writ or order or directions more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents more particularly the 8 Respondent No.2 herein in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Officer Grade-Ill in the existing available vacancies by not following the Memo No.EndowMis/23/Endts.1(2)/2018, dt.07-3-2019 as illegal, contrary to law, highly objectionable, discriminate in nature, official biased, ultra-wires, unconstitutional, as well as violation of article-14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently directing the Respondent No.2 to promote the petitioner in the existing vacancies with all consequential monetary benefits with effect from the date of his Juniors if any promoted, in the interest of justice and to pass IA 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 pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Officer Grade-Ill under the existing vacancies taking into consideration of the seniority of the petitioner with effect from 01-9-2007, by disposing of the Representation dated 5-11-2022 in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CORPUS JURIS LAW PANEL LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 9 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.Nos.16954, 16441 and 22986 of 2024 and 9293 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions are filed questioning the action of Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioners for transfer from the cadre of Junior Assistant to Executive Officer Grade-III as provided under G.O.Ms.No.262, dated 20.05.2022 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The denial of appointment by transfer to the post of Executive Officer Grade-III in all the cases was on the ground that though the petitioners were appointed to Class 6(a),(b) and (c) temples on a non-temporary basis before the year 2000, their services were regularised after issuance of G.O.Ms No.1997 Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 18.10.2005, prohibiting recruitment of all administrative staff in Hindu religious and endowment institutions until further orders. In all cases, the petitioners services in the cadre of Junior Assistant were regularised before the year 2010. 10 3. As the issue is common in all the writ petitions, the W.P.No.22986 of 2024 is taken as the lead case for narrating the facts. The details of the initial appointment of the Petitioners and the present post they are working is provided in the tabular statement given below; Sl.No. Date of appointment Post and Temple Date of Regularization Petitioner No.1 01.04.1992 Junior Assistant in Vedangi Choultry, Vedangi Village, W.G.District 01.10.2007 Petitioner No.2 01.05.1996 Clerk in Sri Kasi Annapoorna Vigneshwaraswamy Temple, Bhimavaram 11.09.2007 Petitioner No.3 01.04.1999 Junior Assistant in Group Temples, Sri Chidambareswaraswamy Temple, Sitampeta Village, Denduluru Mandal. W.G.District 01.10.2006 Petitioner No.4 01.04.1995 Clerk in Sri Vasantha Venugoplaswamy Temple, Yendapalli Village, Chintalapudi Mandal, W.G.District 01.09.2007 11 Petitioner No.5 01.03.2000 Clerk in Sri Yogalingeswaraswamy Temple, Jogannapalem Village, Denduluru Mandal, W.G.District 01.02.2008 4. The Petitioners were appointed and regularised as Junior Assistants/clerks in different Temples as mentioned above and those regularised as clerks were subsequently promoted as Junior Assistants. It was stated that the District Endowment Officer had prepared a seniority list of Junior Assistants as on 04.08.2015 vide proceedings dated 07.09.2023 and in the said seniority list, the Petitioners were placed at Sl.Nos.52, 55, 56, 57 and 58. Despite the same, the persons placed at Sl.Nos.62, 64, 80, 105 and 106 in the seniority list were promoted as Executive Officers Grade-III, bypassing the Petitioners. 5. The Petitioners then gave a representation on 16.5.2024 referring to a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.1996 of 2013. However, the same was rejected by Respondent No.2 on 06.09.2024 by referring to G.O.Ms.No.1997, dated 18.10.2005. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, it was stated that the State Government vide Act 2 of 1994 had 12 prohibited all types of appointments on contract basis, daily wages or on consolidated pay in any public service to any post, any class, category or Grade without permission of the competent authority and without the name of the concerned candidate being sponsored through the employment exchange. As regards endowment institutions, the State Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1997, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 18.10.2025 prohibiting recruitment of all administrative staff in Hindu religious and endowment institutions until further orders. 7. It was stated that unless the services of the temple junior assistant were regularised before the ban period i.e 18.10.2005, the request for appointing them by transfer cannot be considered. It was further stated that extending time-scales and regularising services during the ban period is irregular and contrary to State Government Instructions vide G.O.Rt.No.1997 and hence the Petitioners cannot be considered. 8. It is further stated that the individuals appointed as Executive Officer Grade-III bypassing the Petitioners were regularly appointed and hence, their appointments cannot be questioned. 13 9. Heard Sri M.V.Rajaram, Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader. 10. The method of appointment for the post of Executive Officer Grade-III as per Rule 3 class-I and category-III of APCHRIE Subordinate Service Rules,2002 framed vide G.O.Ms.No.262 Revenue(Endowments-I)Department dated 20.05.2002 is as under; 3. Method of appointment and appointing authority: Class and category (1) Method of appointment (2) 3.Executive Officer Grade-III (i) by direct recruitment (ii) by transfer from the category of Junior Assistants of Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service in the Endowments Department and Junior Assistants working in the institutions published under Section 6(a), (b), ( c ) and (d) of the Act other than Regional Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner cadre institutions. 14 11. As per the above, the junior assistants working in Section 6(a),(b) and (c) temples can be considered for appointment by transfer to the post of Ex.Grade-III. The petitioners working in the cadre of junior assistant are entitled to be appointed by transfer in the normal course. 12. The G.O.Ms No.1997 was issued at the request of the Commissioner of Endowments, and a ban was imposed for further recruitment of all recruitment staff in Hindu Religious and Endowment Institutions until further orders. The paragraph 4 thereof reads as under; “4. Government have carefully examined the matter and hereby prohibit further recruitment of all administrative staff in Hindu Religious and Endowments Institutions until further orders.” 13. It is on account of this G.O., the consideration for appointment by transfer to Executive Officer Grade-III was denied to the petitioners as their services were regularised after the issuance of the G.O. Primarily, the prohibition under the G.O. was on recruitment and not on regularisation. The petitioners were recruited long prior to the issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1997 as mentioned above, and this distinction was not being considered 15 by the Respondents. The term “recruitment” includes all stages of selection of an individual for a post as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prafulla Kumar Swain v. Prakash Chandra Misra, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 181 and the relevant portion is extracted below. “29. At this stage, we will proceed to decide as to the meaning and effect of the words “recruitment” and “appointment”. The term “recruitment” connotes and clearly signifies enlistment, acceptance, selection or approval for appointment. Certainly, this is not actual appointment or posting in service. In contradistinction the word “appointment” means an actual act of posting a person to a particular office.” 14. The regularisation of an individual for the post cannot, by any stretch, be termed to be an aspect of recruitment, as the individual was already appointed in the post. By regularisation, the non-statutory contractual relationship between the employer and employee would stand governed by statutory rules. All other facets of employer and employee relationship will remain constant. 15. The second aspect of the case is that the longstanding service of the petitioners as junior assistants was also recognised by the authorities, and they were included in the seniority lists of junior assistants working in West Godavari district as on 16 04.08.2015.Having rendered nearly 20 years of service in the cadre of Junior Assistant, the petitioners are left without any avenue for promotion. 16. In the normal course, the seniority of an individual and their right to be considered for promotion is reckoned from the date the individual is appointed to a post and as long as there is no challenge to the appointment of the individual to the post, the promotion cannot be denied on the premise that the appointment is invalid. In the present case, the Respondents were aware of the regularization of the Petitioners, no action has been taken questioning their regularization throughout the last 20 years. Only, when a claim is made for further promotion to the post of Executive Officer Grade-III, the issues regarding their regularization are being called in question. 17. The regularisation of the petitioners after the issuance of the G.O., can only be termed as irregular at best, but cannot be said to be a void appointment, as they had requisite qualifications for the said post. In State of M.P. and ors. Vs. Lalit Kumar Verma 2007(1) SCC 575 after considering the Judgment of 17 Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 2006 (4) SCC 1, observed thus: “12. The question which, thus, arises for consideration, would be: Is there any distinction between “irregular appointment” and “illegal appointment”? The distinction between the two terms is apparent. In the event the appointment is made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one; whereas there may be cases where, although, substantial compliance with the constitutional scheme as also the rules have been made, the appointment may be irregular in the sense that some provisions of some rules might not have been strictly adhered to.” 18. The authorities do have the power to take action on such irregular appointments, but the same should be taken within reasonable time. In this case, the Respondents have not taken any action throughout and have acquiesced in their right to question the regularization of the services of the Petitioners in view of passage of time. Therefore, they cannot now deny the petitioners right to consideration for appointment by transfer as Executive Officer Grade-III. 19. The third aspect of the case is that the Petitioners are placed in a piquant situation as they are being continued as Junior Assistants without any avenue for promotion and career 18 progression and the same is impermissible. The non- consideration of the petitioners for promotion and continuing them as junior assistants all through their careers would amount to enslavement and be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 20. The lack of avenues of promotion for employees is unsustainable and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the superior courts can even direct framing of rules providing promotional avenues, notwithstanding the career progression schemes in Food Corporation of India v. Parashotam Das Bansal, (2008) 5 SCC 100 and paragraphs 11,12 and 13 are extracted below; “11. The question also came up for consideration in Ujagar Prints (III) v. Union of India 2 and Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. Bhatt 3. In the latter decision, this Court held: (SCC pp. 638-39, para 9) “9. … It is often said and indeed, adroitly, an organisation public or private does not „hire a hand‟ but engages or employs a whole man. The person is recruited by an organisation not just for a job, but for a whole career. One must, therefore, be given an opportunity to advance. This is the oldest and most important feature of the free enterprise system. The opportunity for 19 advancement is a requirement for progress of any organisation. It is an incentive for personnel development as well. (See Principles of Personnel Management by Flipo Edwin B., 4th Edn., p. 246.) Every management must provide realistic opportunities for promising employees to move upward. „The organisation that fails to develop a satisfactory procedure for promotion is bound to pay a severe penalty in terms of administrative costs, misallocation of personnel, low morale, and ineffectual performance, among both non-managerial employees and their supervisors.‟ (See Personnel Management by Dr. Udai Pareek, p. 277.) There cannot be any modern management much less any career planning, manpower development, management development, etc. which is not related to a system of promotions.” 12. When employees are denied an opportunity of promotion for long years (in this case 30 years) on the ground that they fell within a category of employees excluded from promotional prospect, the superior court will have the jurisdiction to issue necessary direction. 13. If there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, the court although may not issue any direction as to in which manner a scheme should be formulated or by reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion to the officers working in different departments and officers of the Government but the jurisdiction to issue direction to make a scheme cannot be denied to a superior court of the country.” 20 21. Though such a scenario of issuing a direction for framing of a rule is not required in the facts of this case, as provision for appointment by transfer is provided in the rules referred supra, the emphasis on quoting the above judgment is that a person cannot be left without an avenue for positional career progression. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed, directing the Respondents to consider the cases of the Petitioners for appointment by transfer to the post of Executive Officer Grade-III as per their seniority in the cadre of Junior Assistant. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 16.09.2026 KLP