THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.25115 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner and 3rd respondent were appointed as Archakas in Sri Bramaramba Malleswaraswamy Devasthanam, in the year 1995. Both of them were promoted as Mukya Archakas, on 08-11-2002. Through order dated 12-08-2006, the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Executive Oﬃcer of the Devasthanam, had promoted the 3rd respondent as Upa Pradhana Archaka. Petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard Sri M. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has a physical disability and thereby, incurred disqualiﬁcation under Section 36 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). The fact that the 3rd respondent is senior to the petitioner, in the post of Mukya Archaka, is not disputed. Further, the appointment to the post of Upa Pradhana Archaka is purely based upon seniority. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Clause (b) of Section 36 of the Act. Section 36 of the Act prescribes the qualiﬁcations of Archakas, to be appointed in the religious institutions of endowments. It reads asunder: “Sec.36. Qualiﬁcations for Archaka:-- A person shall be qualiﬁed for being appointed as or for being an Archaka of a religious institution or endowment,-- (a) if he has passed the Archaka Examination recognized by the Commissioner; (b) if he is not disabled or suﬀering from any virulent and contagious disease; (c) if he is able to recite vedic mantras and slokas relating to rituals with clarity and without any fault; (d) if he possesses good conduct and character; (e) if he is free from Sapthavyasanams: Provided that preference shall be given to a person who is a Brahmacharin”. From a perusal of the said provision, it becomes evident that the disability is referable to virulent and contagious decease, and not a physical disability, which does not come in the way of discharging the duties of Archakas. Even according to the petitioner, the alleged disability of the 3rd respondent is, in the form of limping. The 3rd respondent has ﬂatly denied the allegation. Assuming that he has the said deformity, it does not ﬁt into Clause (b) of Section 36 of the Act. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21-08-2008. KO