HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8329 of 2009 ORDER: Under the impugned order in Rc.No.E1/672/2006 dated 31/03/2010 passed by the first respondent, at the behest of the second respondent, the appointment order made earlier on 26/07/2009 appointing the petitioner was cancelled as a Mrudangist in the temple of Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamyvari Devasthanam, Annavaram. It appears, the petitioner is a diploma holder in Mrudangam from Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University, Hyderabad. There is no dispute as to the qualifications acquired by the petitioner. While that being so, the petitioner was performing Mrudangam in the temple precincts everyday in the morning and evening for about an hour each and though the petitioner was performing it as a seva, he was paid Rs.50/- per day from 2006 onwards. While that being so, the Executive Officer addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Endowments seeking enhancement of the daily remuneration paid to the petitioner through his letter in R.C.No.E1/672/06 dated 11/09/2008. However, through the letter dated 25/10/2008, the Executive Officer received a communication from the Commissioner of Endowments asking him to take necessary steps to fill up the post notifying the same as per rules. In view of the same, the Executive Officer, Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy vari Devasthanam, Annavaram, published a notification in the local newspaper ‘Surya Daily’ inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Mrudangist for the temple seva. The petitioner applied for the same. However, it appears the only application received was that of the petitioner and none else. So far as the eligibility criteria was concerned, there is no dispute and looking into the application and experience of the petitioner, he was appointed by the Executive Officer through letter dated 26/07/2009. In the letter, it was categorically stated the post is being filled up after notification and in view of the orders of the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad. Since the petitioner satisfied all the eligibility criteria and also working for the last more than five years as a Mrudangist, he was appointed and working as such. However, a show cause notice dated 10/02/2010 was issued by the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam stating that the Commissioner of Endowments issued orders dated 18/12/2009 to cancel the orders of appointment of the petitioner after issuing a notice since the appointment order were issued without following the procedure i.e., constitution of committee and selection of meritorious candidates through proper method of selection etc. He submitted a detailed explanation saying that he was appointed as per the rules and there was no illegality committed by the Executive Officer in appointing him. However, without considering the explanation in proper perspective, the impugned proceedings dated 31/03/2010 canceling the appointment order dated 26/07/2009 were issued. The entire impugned order does not speak as to the appointment of the petitioner on 26/07/2009 was illegal. In fact, permission was granted by the Commissioner to fill up the vacancy after notifying the same, which was done by the Endowments Officer. The impugned order says that no selection process was adopted by a regular selection committee in appointing the petitioner, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner is illegal. In fact, the petitioner has been performing Mrudangam in the bajans of the temple for the last more than five years and in view of orders issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, dated 25/10/2008 a notification was issued and he was appointed. Now, only on the ground that the selection was not properly conducted, the petitioner’s services are sought to be terminated. There was only one application received and the petitioner satisfied all the conditions and once this is so, apart from his five years performance and conduct in the temple as a Mrudangist was taken into consideration. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that there was no approval for appointment of the petitioner. May be, there was no approval for appointment of the petitioner, but there was definitely a permission to fill up the vacancy by the Commissioner. If this is so, only on the ground that the petitioner could have been appointed after prior approval from the Commissioner and no selection process was conducted seems to be most unreasonable and cannot be countenanced. No rules/instructions relating to the selection etc., of Mrudangist are placed before the committee; nor the Endowments Officer was asked to follow the same nor it was mentioned in the notification issued. This is a case where petitioner was performing mrudangam for more than five (5) years - permission was obtained - petitioner satisfied eligibility criteria. Since, the very permission to notify the vacancy came when some more remuneration to the petitioner was recommended by the Endowments Officer, in this case prior approval was a formality. The petitioner was already in service, therefore, under these circumstances, terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of prior approval is unreasonable and arbitrary. While admitting the writ petition on 15/04/2010 this Court granted interim suspension as prayed for and the petitioner is being continued in service. For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 07th July, 2010 SKM