IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.558 OF 2003 Between: The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati. … Appellant And V.Udayasankar Gurukul, Archaka(Gumasta), Sri Kapaleswara Swamy Temple, Tirupathi. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.558 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: - (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 09.12.2002 in allowing W.P.No.677 of 2002, in quashing the show cause notice issued by the appellant/respondent in ROC.No.TS3/32105/98, dated 04.11.1999. We have heard Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner’s father while working as Archaka (Gumastha) in Sri Kapileswara Swamy temple met with an accident on 02.06.1999 and died. Therefore, the respondent/writ petitioner made a representation to the appellant/respondent seeking compassionate appointment stating that he passed Archaka examination conducted by Sri Ekambareswara Swamy Temple, Kanchipuram. Taking into consideration of the representation made by the respondent, the appellant by proceedings dated 04.11.1999 appointed him as Archaka and he joined duty as such on 05.11.1999 and working since then. Later, some of the similarly situated persons approached the appellant seeking extension of the benefit to appoint them also as Archaka Gumasthas on compassionate grounds, citing the case of the respondent as a precedent. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Specified Authority and it was of the opinion that the appointment of the respondent as Archaka Gumastha on Sambhavana basis, is quiet irregular and not in accordance with the rules as per G.O.Ms.No.855, dated 08.10.1997 and accordingly issued the above show cause notice calling upon the respondent, why his services should not be dispensed with. In stead of submitting his explanation to the show cause notice issued by the Specified Authority, the respondent straight away filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed in October 1999 and after keeping silence for a period of two years, his appointment cannot be set-aside on the ground that some other individuals have come up with similar representations. The show cause notice did not make it clear that the respondent had no requisite qualification. The only ground raised is that he was not the son of serving Mirasidar. Such decision cannot be made applicable to the respondent as his appointment was only on Sambavana basis and accordingly allowed the writ petition setting aside the show cause notice with an observation that the order passed in the writ petition cannot be made a binding precedent in future. G.O.Ms.No.855, Revenue (Endowments-I), dated 08.10.1997 was issued pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 09.05.1997 in I.A.No.7 in W.P.(C).No.638 of 1987, wherein it was recommended to constitute a three man committee, which reads as follows: “The Committee recommends that as and when the present incumbent in the religious staff retires or demits the office or otherwise, the person in their family should be considered on priority basis for filling of that post or allowing him to do the service to preserve the custom and usage taking into consideration suitability in rendering services apart from the qualification required.” The same was approved by the Government with the following conditions: “Accepted subject to all other things equal in competitive recruitment. However, the main concern should be to preserve the customs and usage with a view to protect the sanctity of the religious rituals.” Further, the Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams was directed to examine the decision of the Government as accepted by the Supreme Court while filling up the posts and also send necessary proposals for incorporating the same in the rules under Section 34 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The show cause notice does not indicate the irregularities in appointing the respondent or about his eligibility as per the qualifications prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.855, dated 08.10.1997. Further, whether the post held by the respondent’s father is a permanent post or a temporary post to consider his appointment on compassionate grounds, has to be considered on respondent submitting his explanation to the show cause notice before passing final orders, if necessary by giving an opportunity to the respondent. In view of the same, interdicting the show cause notice before the appellant undertaking such exercise is not at all warranted. Having regard to the fact that the respondent was appointed by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and is regularly working since 1999, until the final orders are passed in that regard, he shall be continued in service. Further since we have already observed that the show cause notice is lacking the particulars about the illegality in the appointment of the respondent, it is always open for the appellant to issue a fresh show cause notice pointing out the irregularities in appointing the respondent for enabling him to make an effective representation in that regard. On respondent submitting his explanation to the show cause notice, the appellant shall pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the respondent. Till such period, the respondent shall be continued in service. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is modified, disposing of the writ petition. With the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J 25.02.2010 lmv