THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22728 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the devotees of the Talpagiri Ranganatha Swamyvari Devasthanam, Nellore. Respondents 4 and 5, who were recognized as Theerthamkars, which enables them to be honoured with the Theertham, Chatagopam etc., first, before they offered to other devotees. This writ petition is filed stating that respondents 1 and 2 have failed to fill the posts of Theerthamkars of the Temple, in the place of respondents 4 and 5. A declaration is sought to the effect that the rights conferred upon respondents 4 and 5 under the decree in O.S.No.33 of 1959 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate Court, Nellore, confirmed by this Court in L.P.A.No.20 of 1965, stood abolished by operation of Section 142 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). Respondents 4 and 5 filed counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. It is stated that, except that they receive honours by virtue of their position, they do not hold any posts, as such, and the question of abolition thereof, does not arise. Extensive reference is also made to a judgment of this Court in L.P.A.No.20 of 1965. Heard Sri P.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Deveasthanam, and learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. In a way, the writ petition discloses the level of intolerance among the devotees of the Temple. As it is, there is any amount of attack from outside, effecting the functioning of the Temples, their honour, dignity etc. It cannot be ignored that the concept of inheritance, though not under any provision of law, is being practiced in very high political offices. The children of employees are appointed on compassionate ground either when they die in office or seek voluntary retirement, in certain cases. The inheritance to sacred offices attached to temples was found to be impermissible and they were abolished under Section 142 of the Act. The result is that no person with self- respect is offering to function as an Archaka in the temple and the secular staff is assuming more prominence than religious ones. Be that as it may, respondents 4 and 5 came to be recognized as Theerthamkars in the temple. Their being recognized as such, did not cause any hardship, or inconvenience, to any one. Unless, the petitioners claim any superior rights to those of the respondents 4 and 5, the very prayer made by them is untenable. They proceeded on the assumption that there are posts of Theerthamkars and that the same need to be filled, from time to time. Another wrong assumption on their part is that the Theerthamkar is an office, or position, which stood abolished under Section 142 of the Act. Had they read Section 34 of the Act, they would not have taken the trouble of filing the writ petition and troubling this Court and respondents 4 and 5. This Court recognized the rights of respondents 4 and 5 in its judgment in L.P.A.No.20 of 1965. The honours being received by respondents 4 and 5 are clearly saved under Section 34 of the Act. The Writ Petition is frivolous and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22.06.2010. GJ