IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20720 of 2006 Between: Gopannagari Raghavender S/o Raja Mouli, O/o Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulawada, Karimnagar District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments Department Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 Executive Officer, Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devasthana Vemulawada, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 8-12-2005 requesting them to confine his duties to the post of Sri Durga Sapathasathi Parayanamdar (Archaka) as per the orders of the 1st respondent herein dated 23-12-2000 vide proceedings No. A4/38438/99, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein not to insist upon the petitioner to attend the duty of Mahavidya parayanam in the evening hours to enable the petitioner to attend the duties of Sri Durga Sapthasathi Parayanam Only: and pass such other or further orders as are necessary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20720 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner states that he acquired the knowledge of recital of Sri Durga Sapthasathi and that he has been performing the said duty in Sri Bala Tripura Sundari Temple-part of Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulawada, Karimnagar District, the second respondent, for the last several years. According to the petitioner, the second respondent intended to appoint him as Archaka with specific duties of Sri Durga Sapthasathi Parayanam in the Devasthanam and addressed letter dated 10.07.1999 to the first respondent seeking permission. It is also stated that the first respondent accorded permission vide proceedings No.A4/38438/99 dated 23.12.2000 and despite the same, no action has been taken by the second respondent. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that the services of the petitioner are being availed and though permission was accorded by the first respondent vide proceedings dated 23.12.2000, it has become necessary to re-designate an existing vacancy to accommodate the petitioner, and unless the first respondent accords such permission, the petitioner cannot be appointed on regular basis. It is also stated that the petitioner is being paid salary as fixed by the first respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. The fact that the petitioner is rendering a specialized service in the temple is not disputed. On their part, the Devasthanam mooted the proposal with the first respondent and though administrative permission was accorded, the necessary vacancy did not exist to accommodate the petitioner. Certain exercise of re-designating an existing vacancy became necessary. The proposals in this regard, are said to be pending with the first respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders about the proposals submitted by the second respondent for re-designating an existing vacancy to accommodate the petitioner within a period two {2} months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The second respondent shall take further steps depending on the orders that may be issued by the first respondent in this regard. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 9th July 2008 RRB