THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.21574 OF 2003 DATED 8TH NOVEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN Madakam Buchanna Dora … Petitioner And The Commissioner of Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad And Another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.21574 OF 2003 ORDER: By the impugned proceedings dated 22.09.2003, the services of the petitioner as a Watchman in the second respondent Devasthanam were terminated. Earlier, when he was subjected to similar treatment under the Devasthanam’s Memo dated 22.11.2001, he filed Writ Petition No.1673 of 2002 before this Court. By order dated 26.03.2003, this Court set aside the petitioner’s termination from service on the ground that no opportunity was given to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the Memo dated 22.11.2001. However, this Court left it open to the respondents to proceed in the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Taking a cue therefrom, Show Cause Notice dated 25.08.2003 was issued by the Devasthanam calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why his appointment should not be cancelled as it was not in accordance with the Rules. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 08.09.2003. Thereupon, the impugned proceedings dated 22.09.2003 came to be issued. Perusal thereof reflects that the only ground for terminating the petitioner’s services is that at the time of his appointment there was a ban on recruitment and his appointment was not approved by the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Though the Devasthanam mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 25.08.2003 that the appointment of the petitioner was effected upon the instructions of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Rajahmundry, under proceedings dated 10.12.2000 and the fact that the petitioner was placed on a pay scale by proceedings of the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam dated 01.06.2000, these aspects seem to have been completely overlooked while passing the impugned proceedings. Relevant to note, the case of another Watchman in the second respondent Devasthanam came to be the subject matter of Writ Petition No.4402 of 2002 on the file of this Court. By order dated 06.02.2004, this Court took note of the fact that the services of that Watchman had also been regularized and placed on a time scale, as in the present case, and observed that the said action constituted a ratification of the initial appointment, though irregular. Similar being the facts of the present case, I am inclined to follow the view taken by the learned Judge in the aforestated case. The respondents seem to have only paid lip service to the formality of putting the petitioner on notice, pursuant to the observations made by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. The impugned proceedings however manifest complete lack of application of mind by the respondents. That apart, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4402 of 2002, the other Watchman in the second respondent Devasthanam is continuing in service. Being identically situated, the petitioner in the present case is entitled to similar relief. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 22.09.2003. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith with continuity of service and attendant benefits. He shall however not be entitled to back wages for the period that he remained out of the service of the second respondent Devasthanam as there is no material on record to indicate that he was not gainfully employed during this interregnum period. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 8TH NOVEMBER, 2010. VGSR/PGS