IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3473 of 2008 Between: 1 The Govt.of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue(Endowments) Dept., Secretariat Bulidings, A.P.,Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Endowments, Abids, Tilak Road, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND K.Prasad Rao Working as Senior Assistant, A.K.M Chowltry,Endowments Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Admn.Tribunal Hyderabad, passed in O.A No.468/2006 dt.16-03-2007 as being the erroneous illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass such other appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: MR.K.R.SRINIVAS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3473 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, passed in O.A No.468/2006 dt.16-03-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the material on record. The respondent herein ﬁled O.A.No.468 of 2006 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, seeking to direct the petitioners herein to promote him as Executive Oﬃcer, Gr.II in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 165 dated 22-04-1997 and G.O.Ms.No.225, dated 18-05-1999. The Tribunal by its order dated 16-03-2007 allowed the O.A. and directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the applicant in O.A. for promotion to the post of Executive Oﬃcer, Gr.II, if he is under zone of consideration and if he has crossed 45 years of Age, whether he has passed departmental tests or not. Assailing the said order, the present writ petition is filed. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners submits that the applicant in O.A.No.468 of 2006 was initially appointed as L.D.C. on 08-05-1978 and as he passed the Accounts Test for Executive Oﬃcers, Part-I, he was given promotion as Senior Assistant by the Commissioner, Endowments Department on 28-08-1991, and since then the respondent was working as Senior Assistant. It is contended that generally, persons who are working as Senior Assistants in a temple can be posted and promoted as Executive Oﬃcers, Gr.II, provided, they passed Endowments Departmental Test Papers I and II(Acts and Rules). But, here in this case, the respondent herein has passed the departmental test of Endowments Paper II only and he did not pass Paper-I and hence, he is not entitled to get the promotion to the post of Executive Oﬃcer, Grade-II by transfer. Learned Government Pleader contends that G.O.Ms.No.225 would apply only to the selection grade posts. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in N. RAVINDRA MURTHY v. SHRI VEERABHADRA SWAMY TEMPLE, BONTHUPALLY, MEDAK DISTRICT [1] wherein it was held that “Section 35 of the Act read with Oﬃce Holders Rules deal with appointment of temple employees and other conditions of service. Sections 37 and 38 read with Disciplinary Rules regulate disciplinary matters of these employees. As long as persons discharge functions and duties as temple employees, Section 29(2) and (3) of the Act, Endowment Service Rules and EOs Disciplinary Rules have no application. There is a clear distinction between temple employees and Eos appointed under Act. Apart from this, in applicability of diﬀerent statues, and functionally they are different. Therefore, merely because a temple employee is authorized to discharge the functions of EO under Section 29(5)(d) of the Act, such employee cannot be treated as EO for all purposes and for the purpose of Act and Rules made for Eos. A PIM, therefore, cannot be paid salary from out of CFS. It is axiomatic that if the language of the provision is plain, no other meaning can be ascribed to the language. It is not permissible to ignore the language and attempt at legislative intent going into history and object of legislation so as to suit a given hypothesis. Whatever be the consequences, the Court is bound to give plain meaning and enforce law. Applying this, the submission that PIM should be treated as EO and hence Government employee for the purpose of payment of salary cannot be accepted. The Constitution of India also does not permit any such construction.” Following the above judgment, since the respondent is a Government employee, he has to work out his remedies as available under law by ﬁling separate and appropriate application. In the result, the Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J Date: 14-07-2008 Rns. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies [1] 2008(3) ALT 287(FB)