IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7775 of 2008 Between: Vedantham Appalacharyulu S/o.Venugopala Acharyulu, R/o.H.No.13-402 Patimada Gudiwada Krishna Dist ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary to Govt Revenue (Endowments-I) Department Secretariat,Hyd 2 The Commissioner Endowments Department, Dharmika Bhavan Boggulakunta, Hyd 3 The Executive Officer, Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Jagannadhapuram, Patimeeda Gudiwada 521301 Krishna Dist ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing the orders in Memo No.14186/Endts.1(2)/2008-1 dt.14-3-2008 kept in abeyance of the orders issued by the 2nd respondent promoting the petitioner as Archaka in existing vacancy of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple Gudiwada Krishna Dist as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SRINIVASA MURTHY CHEEDELLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner is working as Paricharaka in Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Devasthanam, Jagannadhapuram, Gudiwada Mandal, Krishna District. There are two sanctioned posts of Archaka for that temple. One such post of Archaka is vacant. Through his proceedings, dated 12.12.2007, the 2nd respondent directed the Executive Officer of the temple, the 3rd respondent, to engage the services of Sri A. Bhaskaracharyulu, as second Archaka, on contract basis, for a period of 11 months, on remuneration of Rs.3,000/- per month. Two months thereafter, 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent, to treat the petitioner as Archaka, in the existing vacancy. He has also directed that Sri Bhaskaracharyulu, who was engaged on contract basis, must be continued, keeping in view the work load in the temple. The Chairman of the Trust Board of the Devasthanam, had approached the 1st respondent, with a representation dated 6.3.2008, obviously narrating the financial difficulties, on account of appointment of the petitioner and Sri Bhaskaracharyulu, as Archakas. The 1st respondent issued memo, dated 14.3.2008, keeping the orders dated 18.2.2008, in abeyance. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Admittedly, there is only one vacancy of Archaka in the temple. Against that, the 2nd respondent accorded permission for appointment of Sri Bhaskaracharyulu, on contract basis, for a period of 11 months, and shortly thereafter, accorded permission for promotion of the petitioner as Archaka. This naturally resulted in a conflicting situation that two persons being employed against one vacancy. Apart from that, the temple had to incur additional financial burden. The 1st respondent, taking note of these developments, kept the order dated 18.2.2008, in abeyance. This court is of the view that the impugned order does not warrant interference, at this stage. The reason is that the mater can be dispassionately considered, as and when 11 months period, for which Sri Bhaskaracharyulu was engaged on contract basis, expires. Respondents 2 and 3 can examine the matter and decide as to whether the post must be filled up by direct recruitment, or by promotion. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to review the matter, comprehensively, by the time the 11 months period, for which Sri Bhaskaracharyulu was appointed on contract basis, expires. Apart from that, the petitioner can also approach the 1st respondent with necessary application, who in turn, shall pass appropriate orders on consideration of the same. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 10th April 2008 PAN