IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 8068 of 2008 Between: S.V.Ramana S/o.late Venkata Rao Sri Talupulamma Ammavari Temple Lovakotturu, Loava, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Talupulamma Ammavari Temple, Lovakotturu Loava Tuni Mandal, E.G. District, rep. by its Executive Officer. RESPONDENTS 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 appropriate writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that, the rule 39 of G.O.Ms.No.888 dt. .12. 2000and Annexure-III thereunder has no application to t he service conditions of the employees working in the temples other than 8 institutions mentioned in Rule 36 or to the 3rd respondent institution and consequentially, set aside the G.O.Rt.No.1407 dt. 24.6.2006 and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Asst. Engineer in the 3rd respondent temple from date he initially promoted to that post vide proceedings No.A1/182/2005 dt. 21.4.2005 with all consequential benefits and pass such other or further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.GURU GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of mandamus declaring Rule 39 framed under GO Ms. No. 888 dated 8.12.2000 and Annexure III appended to it, has no application to the service conditions of the employees working in the temples other than eight institutions mentioned in Rule 36 or to the 3rd respondent institution and consequently to set aside the GO Rt. No. 1407 dated 24.6.2006 and direct the respondents to continue him as Assistant Engineer in the third respondent temple from the date he was initially promoted to the said post, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner joined as Record Assistant in the third respondent temple on 1.4.1991 and on 1.12.1992 he was converted as Fitter and after serving as such for more than eight years, he was promoted as Mechanic on 15.5.2001.While so, keeping in view the upkeep and maintenance of necessities, the third respondent has promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer on 21.4.2005 and since the orders were kept in abeyance, the petitioner filed WP No.14689 of 2005. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was reverted as Mechanic. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a review, which was rejected vide GO Rt. No. 1407 dated 24.6.2006. Consequently, the petitioner filed this writ petition assailing Rule 39 and the above GO. The Rules made under GO Ms. No. 888 dated 8.12.2000 are applicable to all the Office Holders and Servants of all Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments including Maths and Dharmadayams except to the Office Holders and Servants of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. Rule 39 of the Rules prescribes qualifications, as per Annexure – III appended to the G.O., while Rule 38 speaks about Cadre Strength of the eight institutions enumerated in Rule 36. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Rule 39 of the Rule issued in the above GO Ms.888 Revenue (Endowments. I) Department dated 8.12.2000 is not applicable in case of the third respondent temple, and, therefore, the impugned GO Rt. No. 1407 dated 24.6.2006, rejecting claim of the petitioner, is liable to be set aside. Rule 39 prescribes qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in Category 2, in Water Works Branch. For direct recruitment one must possess, LCE or other equivalent qualification and for promotion from the post of Mechanic, one who does not possess the above qualification, must have put in a service of not less than ten years in Category-2 - Mechanic. The said Rules further show that for appointment to the post of Mechanic in Category-2, either for direct recruitment or for promotion, one must possess ITI certificate in Fitter Trade with experience of not less than two years. The petitioner is very much silent as to whether he possess ITI certificate in Fitter Trade. Be that is so, it is not the case of the petitioner that he holds a Diploma in Civil Engineering or its equivalent qualification, leave alone putting in service of ten years in category 2, as Mechanic. It is case of the petitioner that post of Mechanic, held by him, was upgraded by the 2nd respondent to that of the Assistant Engineer, viz., The Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, it goes without saying that the third respondent temple is covered by the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act and as a necessary corollary, the Rules framed under GO Ms. No. 888 dated 8.12.2000 extends to the third respondent temple also. Having considered the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the prayer sought for by the petitioner is contrary to the Rules. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ S.ASHOK KUMAR, J. April 15, 2008 MAS.