IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7147 of 2009 Between: 1 U.Varalakshmi, W/o.Sri Madhava Rao, Sri Valli Devasana Sametha Sri Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Temple,Singarayapalem, Krisshna District 2 M.V.Suresh Babu, S/o.Sri Ranganayukulu, Sri Mavullamma Ammavari Temple Bhimavaram, West Godavari District 3 Ch.Durga Prasad, S/o.Venkata Rao, Sri Bala Balaji Temple, Appanapalli, East Godavari District 4 S.S.V.S.S.Prasad S/o.Sri Munuswamy, Sri.P.M.K.Choultry, Rajahmundry East Godavari District 5 B.L.V.Prasad, S/o.Late Viswanatham Ananthapur 6 S.Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Sri Papa Rao, Nalgonda ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 M.Sarada Kumari, W/o.Koteswara Rao, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Vijayawada,KRishna District 2 A.V.Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Ramulu, Office of the Commissioner of Endowments Eluru, West Godavari District. 3 D.L.V.Ramesh Babu, S/o.Late Adinarayana Rao, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 V.Satyanarayana, S/o.Sambamurthy Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments Rajahmundry , East Godavari District. 5 J.G.Venkatesh, S/o.Late H.s.Goverdhan, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowment,s Chittoor, Chittoor District 6 G.Mallikarjuna Prasad, S/o.late G.roshaiah, Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Anantapur, Anantapur District 7 K.Siva Kumar, S/o.Narasimham, Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur, Guntur District 8 E.Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o.late Venkat Reddy, Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple Golagamudi Nellore District 9 V.Krishna Murthy, S/o.Rama Murthy, Office of the Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 10 M.Rama Krishna Rao, S/o.M.B.Rama Rao, working as P.A.to Minister for Rural Development on Old Secretariat Buildings, J Block, 8th floor secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 11 The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 12 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the orders dated 24.3.2009 passed in OA.No.1258 of 2009 on the file of the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, and against the judgment reported in 2006(4) ALD 649 and consequentially direct respondents 11 and 12 to continue the petitioners as Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner and Executive Officer, and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 8: None Counsel for the Respondent No.9: Ch. Kanaka Durga Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 11 and 12: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7147 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Assailing the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 1258 of 2009, dated 24.3.2009, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The facts in brief are that the petitioners are working as P.As. to Executive Officers of various temples and they belong to category (d). Petitioners claim that they are eligible to be appointed as Assistant Commissioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they are eligible and possess the requisite qualifications, the respondent- authorities are filling up the vacancies from the other feeder categories, particularly from the category of Executive Officer, Grade-I and Superintendents (Moffusil). The petitioners state that the respondents 1 to 10 are from category (b) and they are also eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner. While so, through proceedings dated 8.8.2008, the Commissioner of Endowments promoted the petitioners as Assistant Commissioners on ad hoc basis. Assailing those proceedings, the respondents 1 to 10, who are the applicants in O.A. No.1258 of 2009, filed the aforementioned O.A. before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, through the impugned order, while admitting the O.A. suspended the proceedings dated 8.8.2008 of the Commissioner. Feeling aggrieved, respondents 2 to 7 in O.A. have filed the writ petition. Sri P.V.S.S. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the category of P.A. to Executive Officer is equivalent to the category of Superintendents and since the petitioners are working as P.As. to Executive Officers of various temples, they are entitled to be promoted as Assistant Commissioners on par with the Superintendents. Learned counsel would further contend that as per Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Service Rules, 2002 (for short ‘the Rules’), the posts of Assistant Commissioners can be filled up by transfer of a person, who has been holding an equivalent post of Asst. Commissioner in any other Charitable or Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments published under Clause (a) of Section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, including a person in the service of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam and since the petitioners belong to Category 5, they can be promoted as Assistant Commissioners. Rule 3 of the said Rules deals with the method of appointment of Assistant Commissioners, which reads thus: ________________________________________________________________________ (1) (2) (3) (4) ________________________________________________________________________ Category(5) Assistant Commissioner (1) By direct recruitment of person who has not less than 3(three) years of practice as an Advocate in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh; or (ii) By promotion from the category of Superintendent in Endowments Depart- ment; or iii) By promotion of Executive Officer Grade-I ; or iv) By transfer of a person, who has been holding an equivalent post of Asst. Commissioner in any of the Charitable or Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments published under Clause (a) of Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 including a person in the service of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. ________________________________________________________________________ Learned counsel would further contend that the Tribunal passed the impugned order suspending the proceedings dated 8.8.2008, without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioners. While relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in B.Nageswara Rao & Others vs. Government of A.P. & others ([1]) , learned counsel would contend that mere existence of strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the applicant are not sufficient for passing an interim order of injunction/stay and the Tribunal gravely erred in granting interim suspension of the impugned proceedings. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. On the other hand, Mr. Murali Krishna, learned counsel who is appearing on behalf of the caveator would contend that the D.P.C. which was constituted vide G.O. Ms. No.521, dated 21.3.2006 was for a period of two years and the term of the said D.P.C. expired on 20.3.2008. He would further submit that a fresh D.P.C. was constituted vide G.O. Ms. No. 62, dated 17.1.2009 for the panel years 2008-2009 and 2009-10 and the respondent- authorities without noticing this fact, have erroneously issued proceedings dated 8.8.2008 promoting the petitioners as Assistant Commissioners. The Tribunal, therefore, while taking this fact into consideration, granted the interim order suspending the proceedings dated 8.8.2008 of the Commissioner. He, therefore, states that the impugned order does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. In view of the fact that through the impugned order, the Tribunal has only granted an interim order in the O.A. and it did not pass any final orders touching upon the merits of the contentions or determining the rights of the parties, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, we feel it appropriate to permit the petitioners to file an application before the Tribunal seeking vacation of the interim order granted by the Tribunal on 24.3.2009 and on such application being filed, the Tribunal shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks thereafter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. No costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 8th April, 2009 _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY,J pnb [1] 2006(4) ALD 649 (DB)