THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.6414 of 2001 & 20725 of 2001 Date:29-07-2011 Between: M.Krishna Murthy S/o Samabaiah and others (Petitioners in W.P.No.6414 of 2001) N.Rajender S/o late Bheemaiah (Petitioner in W.P.No.20725 of 2001) …Petitioners A n d The Commissioner of Endowments and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.6414 and 20725 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: Since the result in Writ Petition No.6414 of 2001 has a direct bearing on the relief sought for in Writ Petition No.20725 of 2001, both the writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2(a). M.Kishna Murthy, K.Natarraj and R.Gouri Shankar are the petitioners in W.P.No.6414 of 2001, and whereas N.Rajender is the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.6414 of 2001 and the petitioner in W.P.No.20725 of 2001. M.Krishna Murthy was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 01.9.1989 in Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulawada, Karimnagar District (hereinafter referred to as “the SRR Devasthanam”). K.Nataraj was appointed as Junior Assistant on 21.10.1989 in Sri Lakshminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda District (hereinafter referred to as “SLNS Devasthanam”) and R.Gouri Shankar was appointed as Junior Assistant in SRR Devasthanam on 01.01.1991. They all come under the Endowments Department. 2(b) N.Rajender-3rd respondent in W.P.No.6414 of 2001 was appointed as PET on payment of Rs.20/- per day in Sanskrit school of SRR Devasthanam by the Executive Officer, SRR Devasthanam, Vemulawada, under Procs.Rc.No.510/1947/88, Dated 28.02.1989. N.Rajender submitted representation on 15.3.1989 to the Executive Officer, SRR Devasthanam for grant of pay scale to him as PET. The Board of Trustees of SRR Devasthanam under Resolution No.4 dated 05.6.1989, considered the representation and recommended for sanction of pay scale in the time scale of Rs.1010-35-1360-40-1800. The Executive Officer, SRR Devasthanam, conveyed the resolution passed by the Trust Board of Devasthanam to the Commissioner, Endowments Department at Hyderabad and sought for sanction. The Commissioner, Endowments Department considered the resolution of the Board of Trustees of SRR Devasthanam and rejected the proposal and conveyed the same to the Executive Officer of SRR Devasthanam under Proceedings bearing L.Dis.No.A2/35672/89, Dt.21.7.1989. The text of the proceedings reads as hereunder: - “ …. …… ….. The attention of the Executive Officer of the subject devasthanam is invited to the reference cited and he is informed that Sri N.Rajender has joined as P.E.T on 24-2-89 in the Sanskrit Patasalas at Vemulawada on Rs.20/- per day and he has recommended for sanction of scale of pay applicable to the post of P.E.T in contrary to the Trust Board Resolution. As such, his proposal is rejected. He is requested to submit further proposal keeping in view of the Trust Board Resolution”. 2(c ) N.Rajender submitted representation to the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in the month of January 1990 seeking sanction of pay scale in the scale of Rs.1010-35-1360-40-1800. The Commissioner, Endowments Department rejected the proposal of the Executive Officer for sanction of pay scale to N.Rajender, vide letter D. Dis.No.A2/4396/90, dated 14.03.1990. The text of the letter reads as hereunder:- “ The Executive Officer, Sri Vemulawada Raja Rajeswara Swmay Devasthanam sent proposals to sanction the scale to the PET post for the said Devasthanam Sanskrit School. The said post was sanctioned under NMR basis, hence the Rules are not permitted to sanction the scale for the said post.” 2(d) N.Rajender submitted another representation to the Secretary, Sri Raja Rajeswara Sanskrit Schools, Vemulawada, Karminagar District seeking sanction of pay scale to him. The Secretary considered the representation and issued proceedings dated 01.5.1990, vide Rc.No.SK/1947/88, dated 01.5.1990. The text of the proceedings issued by the Secretary, reads as hereunder:- “ ….. ……. …….. As per the above cited Ref.1, the Commissioner of endowments sanctioned one PET Post, and advised to fill the post on NMR basis. As per the said orders one Mr. N.Rajender was awarded the PET Post on 01/03/1989 on payment of Rs.20/- per day on NMR basis, and he was appointed through Employment Exchange. Now he is working at Rs.600/- per month only. At present we are sanctioned the scale of Rs.1010-35-1360-40-1800 from 01-05-1990 onwards for the said PET post. This orders are sanctioned on purely temporary basis, at any time without giving any notice, we may remove him from the services. This orders come in to force from the date of appointment i.e., joining into the duties, it is also directed the Head Master, to submit the Joining report to this office.” 3. N.Rajender after getting the benefit of pay scale submitted representation to the Executive Officer, SRR Devasthanam to upgrade the post of PET to that of Junior Assistant and he undertook to take the last place in the list of approved probationers in the cadre of Junior Assistants in the Department. 4. The Local Fund Audit Officer objected for grant of pay scale to N.Rajender as P.E.T on the ground that the post of P.E.T does not exist in the staff pattern of the school. Since appointment of N.Rajender as P.E.T. in the School was without there being a sanctioned post, he came to be allotted to Devasthanam establishment as Junior Assistant on his giving undertaking to take the last place in the seniority list of approved probationers in the cadre of Junior Assistants. N.Rajender after joining in SRR Devasthanam as Junior Assistant made a representation to upgrade his post as Senior Assistant and allow him the pay scale attached to that post. 5. The Commissioner considered the proposals of the Executive Officer of SRR Devasthanam and upgraded the post of Junior Assistant to that of Senior Assistant and allowed the pay scale attached to that post to N.Rajender without any monetary benefits up to 27.12.1996. The text of the proceedings issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, reads as hereunder:- “ …. ……. …… The Executive Officer of the subject Devasthanam is informed that his proposals in his letter, dated 5/16-11-99 is to consider the request of the individual in view of the length of service as P.E.T and also passing of Departmental Test for fixing the seniority and also to upgrade the post of Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant as the P.E.T scale is higher than that of Junior Assistant scale. The Executive Officer of the subject Devasthanam is hereby permitted to pass orders accordingly, but without monetary benefit up to 27-12-1996 on which date the individual reported for duty as Junior Assistant. “ 6. Pursuant to the proceedings issued by the Commissioner, the Executive Officer , SRR Devasthanam, issued consequential proceedings upgrading Mr. N.Rajender from Junior Assistant to the post of Senior Assistant and allowing pay scale attached to that post, by proceedings dated 29.3.2001. The text of the proceedings issued by the Executive Officer of SRR Devasthanam reads as hereunder:- “ As per the above reference of the Commissioner proceedings were issued upgrading the post of Junior Assistant relating to N.Rajender to the post of Senior Assistant orders were issued. As per the above orders, Sri Rajender, Junior Assistant is hereby upgraded as Senior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.4190-120-4550- 150-5300-170(24)-6150-200-7150-250-8400-300-8700. The above orders will come into effect from 29.03.2001 and the above orders are temporary. “ 7. The writ petitioners in W.P.No.6414 of 2001 assails the proceedings issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department upgrading N.Rajender to the post of Senior Assistant. Whereas N.Rajender filed W.P.No.20725 of 2001 assailing the proceedings issued by the Commissioner upgrading him to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 29.3.2001 instead of 27.12.1996. According to N.Rajender, proceeding issued by the Executive Officer is not in tune with the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Endowments. For completion of narration of facts, I deem it appropriate to refer Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.20725 of 2001, which read as hereunder:- “6. In this regard, I submit that as per the sanction order of the Commissioner of Endowments the 2nd Respondent asked the District Employment Exchange, Karimnagar to sponsor the candidates for the post of PET in the year 1989. The Employment Exchange has sponsored 20 candidates including me. The individuals (interviews) were conducted by a committee consisting of Trust Board CM, Executive Officer and a representative from District Educational Office, Kaminagar etc. I was selected in the interview and accordingly, I was appointed as PET on 1.12.1990 and it was approved by the Commissioner. Since then I have worked as PET to the satisfaction of my superiors. 7. While the matter stood thus the 1st Respondent was pleased to absorb me as Junior Assistant in SRR Devasthanam under the control of 2nd Respondent vide Proc. Rc.No.A4/25747/96 dated 4.9.96. I submit that, then I made a representation to Commissioner to place me in the post of Senior Assistant or upgrade my post as Senior Assistant as I have worked in the higher scale of PET for a period of 6 years. Moreover I have passed departmental test by 17.07.1997. The second Respondent has also recommended for up gradation of my post vide his proceedings Rc.No.A2/1222/97 dated 5/16.11.97. 8. Now the action of the second Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and against the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 4.1.2001. The second Respondent ought to have upgraded my post as Senior Assistant w.e.f 27.12.1996 as per the proceedings of the Commissioner Rc.No.A4/5067/96 dated 4.01.2001.” 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in W.P.No.6414 of 2001. 9. Heard Sri P.Sainath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent has been initially appointed as PET, on daily wages, and subsequently, pay scale came to be allotted and the proposal of the Trust Board in allowing the pay scale to him came to be rejected by the Commissioner under proceedings dated 21.7.1989. A further submission has been made that the appointment of the 3rd respondent as PET itself is without there being any post and the said fact has been pointed out by the Audit Department and thereupon, the Endowments Department, on humanitarian grounds, instead of terminating his services, appointed him as a Junior Assistant in the Devasthanam establishment on his giving undertaking to take the last rank in the list of approved probationers of Junior Assistants. The 3rd respondent having accepted the said condition and joined in the Department as Junior Assistant, cannot seek upgradation of his post to the cadre of Senior Assistant and his absorption in the upgraded post. In a way, his contention is that in case any post of Senior Assistant is created, all the eligible employees in the cadre of Junior Assistants are to be considered as per the service rules and the 3rd respondent is indisputably junior to all the writ petitioners in which case, promoting him as Senior Assistant with effect from 27.12.1996 by proceedings dated 04.01.2001 is illegal, contrary to the service rules and therefore, the proceedings issued by the Commissioner dated 04.01.2001 and the consequential proceedings issued by the Executive Officer, SRR Devasthanam dated 29.3.2001 are liable to be quashed. 11. Learned counsel took me to Annexure-III of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). According to the learned counsel, there is no Direct Recruitment to the post of Senior Assistant and the source for filling up of the post of Senior Assistant is only by way of promotion from the cadre of Junior Assistant. Learned counsel took me to the various proceedings issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department whereunder the proposal of the Trust Board of SRR Devasthanam recommending pay sclae to N.Rajender came to be rejected. 12. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 does not dispute the fact of rejection of the proposal sent by the Executive Officer of SRR Devasthanam and the Resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of SRR Devasthanam recommending pay scale to N.Rajender-3rd respondent. Learned Standing Counsel fairly placed before me the factual aspects whereunder, once the proposal sent by the Executive Officer recommending pay scale came to be rejected. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent came to be selected by a committee consequent upon his name being sponsored by the Employment Exchange and since then, he has been working as PET and therefore, considering his subsequent representations, the 1st respondent upgraded his post from Junior Assistant to Senior Assistant, allowed the pay scale attached that post. In a way, his contention is that the pay scale of PET is above the pay scale attached to the post of Junior Assistant and in view of his being absorbed in the Devasthanam establishment, his pay has to be necessarily be fixed above the pay scale of Junior Assistant, in which case, the proceedings issued by the Commissioner cannot be found fault. He would also contend that the Commissioner has specifically stated that upgradation of the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 27.12.1996 and whereas the Executive Officer while issuing consequential proceedings allowed pay scale to the 3rd respondent with effect from 29.3.2001. Since the proceeding issued by the Executive Officer is not in tune with the proceedings issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, the proceeding issued by the Executive Officer-2nd respondent is to be quashed while issuing direction for implementation of the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Endowments-1st respondent. 14. The issue that calls for adjudication is whether the proceedings, dated 04.01.2001, in Rc.A4/5067/96, issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, Government of A.P., Hyderabad-1st respondent, and consequential proceedings, dated 29.03.2001, in Rc.A2/1222/96-1, issued by the Executive Officer, Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy devasthanam, Vemulawada, Karimnagar District-2nd respondent, promoting N.Rajender-3rd respondent as senior assistant are legal and proper? 15. It is not in dispute that N.Rajender-3rd respondent was initially appointed as P.E.T. on daily wages at the rate of Rs.20/- per day. The resolutions passed by the trust members of Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulawada, Karimnagar District, seeking sanction of P.E.T. post for the Sanskrit School came to be rejected by the Commissioner of Endowments-1st respondent. Even the proposals recommending pay scale to the 3rd respondent came to be rejected by the Commissioner of Endowments-1st respondent. The very proposal for sanction of P.E.T. post to the Sanskrit school came to be not approved by the Commissioner of Endowments-1st respondent. Instead of terminating the services of N.Rajender-3rd respondent, the Executive Officer, Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy devasthanam, Vemulawada-2nd respondent appointed him as junior assistant subject to his taking the last rank in the seniority list of approved probationers of junior assistant. The 3rd respondent accepted the condition and joined as junior assistant. As per the seniority list prepared by the Executive Officer, Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulawada-2nd respondent, the names of the petitioners find place at S.Nos.5, 6 and 9, whereas, the name of the 3rd respondent finds place at S.No.16. It indicates that the 3rd respondent is a junior to the writ petitions. As per the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000, there is no direct recruitment to the post of senior assistant. It is only by way of promotion or by loan of service from the senior assistants of Endowment Department. The proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad-1st respondent upgrading the post held by the 3rd respondent as senior assistant and absorbing him in the upper grade post is contrary to the service rules. The proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Endowments-1st respondent upgrading the post of 3rd respondent to the senior assistant and accommodating him in the upper grade post is contrary to the services rules. If at all any post is upgraded, the claims of all the persons eligible to the upgraded post are to be considered and the said upgrade post is to be filled up in accordance with the service rules. Therefore, the appointment of 3rd respondent in the upgraded post of senior assistant is contrary to the service rules. In that view of the matter, the proceeding, dated 04.01.2001, in Rc.A4/5067/96, issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, Government of A.P., Hyderabad-1st respondent, and the consequential proceeding, dated 29.03.2001, in Rc.A2/1222/96-1, issued by the Executive Officer, Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulawada, Karimnagar District-2nd respondent, promoting N.Rajender-3rd respondent as senior assistant, are hereby quashed. 16. In that view of the matter, WP No.6414 of 2001 is allowed and consequently, W.P.No.20725 of 2001 filed by N.Rajender does not survive and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:29th July, 2011. Cs/Rar THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.6414 and 20725 of 2001 Date:29th July, 2011