THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.30033 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly on in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not considering the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Typist under the category of OC (Women) Ex.Serviceman as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Typist under the category of OC (Women) Ex.Serviceman in respondent Temple”. According to the petitioner, her husband D.Sainath who was working in Indian Army died on 5.12.1998 and she is survived by herself and her two children namely D.Harsha Kireeti and Megha and the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Chittoor also issued Family Members Certificate to that effect and besides that she also got Service Certificate of her husband certifying that her husband died on 5.12.1998. Further, in response to the notification issued by the respondent-Temple vide Roc.No.E10/10093/2010 dated 12.7.2010 inviting the applications for filling up the posts of Typists, she applied for the post of Typist under the quota meant for OC (Women) Ex- Serviceman. Further, though she received hall ticket and appeared in the written examination on 26.9.2010 and got 67 marks in that examination and was placed under Serial No.19 in the merit list, the respondent authorities are not considering her candidature for the post of Typist under the category of OC (Women) Ex-Serviceman. Hence this writ petition is filed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the identity card issued by the Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer, Chittoor, the petitioner is the widow of an Ex-Serviceman and further the respondent accepted the application of the petitioner and called her for interview and conducted examination and she got 67 marks, but ultimately without passing any speaking order, she was denied the appointment. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent Temple that by virtue of Rule 16 of State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the petitioner does not come within the purview of the definition of Ex-Serviceman and further, the respondent has properly examined the matter and there are no grounds to allow the writ petition. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of State and Subordinate Service Rules are not applicable to the employees of Respondent-Temple and there are no rules or regulations existing enabling the appointment to the petitioner. Having heard both sides and perused the material available on record, I am of the view that the respondent while rejecting the case of the petitioner should have passed necessary speaking order taking into consideration relevant circumstances. The State and Subordinate Service Rules cannot be made applicable to the employees of the Respondent Temple. There might be separate rules or regulations governing the respondent, therefore it is for the respondent authorities to pass speaking order while considering the case of the petitioner with reference to relevant rules and regulations. Therefore, the respondent-Temple is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Typist, as per their rules and regulations subject to applicability, and pass necessary speaking order in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 13.12.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.30033 of 2010 13.12.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No.30033 of 2010 Date: 13th December, 2011 Between: Gundala Muni Madhavi .. Petitioner And Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupati, Chittoor district, rep.by its Executive Officer. .. Respondent