IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 15047 of 2011 Between: Mr.K.V.Gopala Rao …PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 15047 of 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned Memo No.D1/14133/2011, dated 11.05.2011, as illegal and consequently to set aside the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 11.05.1990 in Sri Valli Devasena Sametha Sri Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Temple, Singarayapalem Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. The Commissioner of Endowments, vide proceedings R.C.No.B2/30098/97, dated 10.06.1997, transferred the petitioner to Sri Peddenti Ammavari Temple, Kolletikota Village, Kaikaluru Mandal, Krishna District. Respondent No.2 also issued proceedings R.C.No.F1/46604/2001-36, dated 31.08.2001, promoted the petitioner as person-in-Management (Manager) and transferred to Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple, Balive Village, Musunur Mandal, Krishna District. Thereafter respondent No.2 issued proceedings R.C.No.G1/504/2002, dated 24.09.2002, transferring the petitioner to Kaikaluru Group of Temples in the year 2004 and was transferred to Sri Ramalingeswara and Kodanda Swamy Temple, Venutaramilli Village, Gudlavallaru Mandal, Krishna District. In the year 2008, the petitioner was transferred to Sri Visweswara Swamy Temple, Gudiwada and also given Additional charge of Jagannadha Swamivari Temple, Vadali Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. A new trust board was constituted on 07.11.2010 and differences arose between the Chairman and Trust board members. All of a sudden, respondent No.2 issued impugned Memo, dated 11.05.2011 transferring the petitioner from the present institution to parent institution. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned memo was issued without issuing any notice to the petitioner; that it is a stigmatic order and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned memo. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents contended that it is only repatriating the petitioner to his parent institution; that it is not a stigmatic order; that in view of certain illegalities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, a regular Departmental Enquiry was contemplated against him and hence, that order needs no interference by this Court. 5. Repatriation only signifies that the employee returns back to his substantive post over which he is holding a lien and can obviously take place on a termination of the deputation. An employee cannot avoid repatriation merely on the ground of hardship. 6. The impugned memo, dated 11.05.2011, issued by respondent No.2, would clearly go to show that the petitioner was directed to handover complete charge and repatriated to his parent institution i.e., Sri Valli Devasena Sametha Sri Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Temple, Singarayapalem Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a stigmatic order in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Senior Assistant, but he was holding the post of Manager in Jagannadha Swamivari Temple. Admittedly, the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Manager, but was discharging his duties as Manager at Jagannadha Swamivari Temple. As the Manager post was vacant, he was kept in-charge. Therefore, in the absence of any promotion as temporary or permanent, he cannot claim, as a matter of right, to the post of Manager as his substantive post is Senior Assistant. Therefore, the petitioner has repatriated to the parent institution when certain illegalities alleged to have been committed by him while discharging his duties as Manager. For that reason the impugned memo was issued directing the petitioner to report to the parent institution in which he was appointed. Therefore, that order needs no interfere by this Court and it cannot be said that it is a stigmatic order. It is only repatriation to the parent institution as he alleged to have been committed certain illegalities for which a regular departmental enquiry has been initiated against him. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned memo. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J JUNE 07, 2011 YVL