THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 3756 of 2008 O r d e r: Questioning the orders dated 05.10.2005, passed by respondent No.2, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Warangal, directing respondent No.3, namely the Executive Officer, Sri Dubba Rajeswara Swamy Temple, to fix and follow the rotation among the archakas mentioned therein, for performing the duties of archakatvam in the temple, the petitioners filed the present writ petition, The petitioners claim that they belong to Adisaiva Agama Sampradayam, and are working as hereditary archakas in the main temple. That respondent No.5, who belongs to Vaidika Smartha Sampradayam, cannot become archaka of the main temple, but respondent No.5, after taking over as Brahma Poojari, influenced respondent No.2, and got issued the impugned orders, for performing services as archakas of the main temple on rotation basis. The said order, the petitioners contend, is contrary to the provisions of Section 13 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Endowments Act’) which prohibits interference with the forms, usages, customs, ceremonies and practices. They state that as the impugned order seeks to interfere with the hindu religious faith and practice, they submitted representation dated 29.08.2007, but till date no action thereon had been taken. Hence the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5. Though the petitioners contend that respondent No.5 is not qualified to work as archaka and perform pooja in the main temple because he does not belong to Vaidika Smartha Sampradayam, the same is disputed by respondent No.2 in the counter filed by him, and it is specifically contended by him that respondent No.5 passed in Pravesha and Vara examinations in Vaidika Smartha Agama an that the same is not against Shaiva Agama Sampradaya. That Vaidika Smartha Agama is also called Samanya Shaiva and admirers of Shiva Panchayathana i.e. Shiva, Vishnu and Ambika (Mother Goddess Parvathi. It is contended further by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that as petitioner No.1 is not well versed in archakatvam services in the main temple, the Trust Board passed a resolution on 18.05.1984 to appoint the father of respondent No.5 as poojari in the temple as he was well versed with mantras and experienced in performance of archakatvam, and accordingly, based on the resolution, the competent authority vide proceedings dated 29.10.1984 permitted appointment of the father of respondent No.5 in the cadre strength of the temple, and after his demise, his brother was appointed, and after him, respondent No.5 was appointed on 01.02.1996 against the cadre strength, which was subsequently approved by respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 22.02.2000. That as per the staffing pattern of the temple, petitioner No.1 is working as Upa Mukya Archaka whereas two other petitioners and respondent No.5 are working as archakas. As there was dispute with regard to sharing of duties amongst the petitioners and respondent No.5, respondent No.2 conducted a detailed enquiry, and based on the enquiry report and the earlier resolution passed by the Trust Board, so as to avoid discrimination amongst the archakas, respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings dated 05.10.2005 to fix the services by rotation system among the archakas. The petitioners and respondent No. 5, are also said to have entered into an agreement on 21.02.2006, a copy of which is filed, with regard to performance of archakatvam services in the main temple and sub-temples on rotation basis. Though respondent No.2, passed the impugned order on 05.10.2005, and thereafter, the petitioners and respondent No.5, are said to have entered into an agreement with regard to performance of archakatvam, for the reasons best known to them, the petitioners filed the present writ petition questioning the order of respondent No.2, after lapse of two and a half years. Be that as it may, as against the impugned order, passed by respondent No.2, it is stated by petitioner No.3 that the petitioners have remedy of making an application to respondent No.1, namely the Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, under Section 92 of the Endowments Act, but the petitioners without availing the said remedy, have directly approached this Court. Since the petitioners have alternative remedy of making application to respondent No.1 against the impugned order of respondent No.2 under Section 92 of the Endowments Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioners are at liberty to avail the remedy of making application to respondent No.1 against the impugned order of respondent No.2, under Section 92 of the Endowments Act, if so advised. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 6th October,, 2010 KSR