THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.71 OF 2006 DATED 6th DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN Guthula Srinivas and another … Petitioners And The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Tilak Road, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad and Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.71 OF 2006 O R D E R The petitioners, Attenders in the service of Sri Bala Balaji Devasthanam, Appanapalli, East Godavari District, the second respondent, challenge the proceedings dated 24.11.2005 issued by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, and the consequential proceedings of the second respondent Temple dated 10.12.2005, whereby the third respondent was appointed as a Record Assistant in a supernumerary post in the service of the second respondent Temple. In spite of service of notice, the third respondent did not choose to put in an appearance before this Court either in person or through an Advocate. Sri N.Guru Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged two grounds to attack the appointment of the third respondent under the impugned proceedings. He pointed out that as per the proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1987’) the competent authority for appointing office-holders and servants of a charitable or religious institution with annual income of more than Rs.10 lakhs would be the Executive Officer. The learned counsel stated that the second respondent Temple fufills this requirement and therefore, only its Executive Officer would be the competent authority to appoint the third respondent. In the present case, the Executive Officer addressed letter dated 03.08.2005 to the Regional Joint Commissioner, Endowments Departments, Kakinada, explaining the reasons as to his inability to appoint the third respondent on compassionate grounds. Thereupon, the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, issued the impugned proceedings dated 24.11.2005 according permission to the Executive Officer of the second respondent Temple to appoint the third respondent on compassionate grounds by creating a supernumerary post in the second respondent Temple. The learned counsel relied upon the Judgment dated 19.03.2008 of a Full Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1789 of 2004 and batch to support his contention that the Commissioner had no role to play in the matter. The Full Bench observed in the said Judgment that there is no direct relationship of ‘master’ and ‘servant’ or ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ between the Commissioner and the Temple employee. This observation was made in the context of disciplinary control being exercised by the Commissioner upon Temple employees. But the fact remains that as per the scheme of the Act of 1987 the Executive Officer is the appointing authority and not the Commissioner. That apart, the substantial ground of challenge against the appointment of the third respondent is that the same is in violation of the rules in so far as his eligibility is concerned. Sri N.Guru Gopal, learned counsel, relied upon the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000 contained in G.O.Ms.No.888, Revenue (Endowments.I), dated 08.12.2000, framed under Section 35(4) of the Act of 1987 and submitted that as per Rule 41 thereof the maximum age has been stipulated for appointment by direct recruitment with reference to the first day of July of the year in which the appointment is made. As per Annexure-III appended to the said Rules, for the post of ‘Record Assistant’ the appointee must not have attained the age of 28 years as on 1st July of the year in which he was appointed. The Service Register of the third respondent is placed on record and indicates that his date of birth is 01.02.1973. He was therefore over 32 years of age by the date he was appointed as a Record Assistant in the service of the second respondent Temple and was ineligible as per rules. Thus, for reasons more than one, the appointment of the third respondent cannot be sustained. The impugned proceedings are accordingly set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 6TH DECEMBER, 2010 PGS/VGSR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.71 OF 2006 6th DECEMBER, 2010