THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 32421 of 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Senior Assistant working with the 2nd respondent Devasthanam. He is aggrieved by the orders passed on 18.12.2010 by the Commissioner of Endowments Department, transferring him from out of the establishment of the 2nd respondent Devasthanam and posting him to the 3rd respondent Devasthanam at Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District. What triggered the Commissioner to pass these orders of transfer appears to be the note dated 15.12.2010 from the Vigilance Officer working in his office. The writ petitioner submits that he has a clean record of service ever since his entry in 1997 and that he has never given scope for anyone to raise their little finger against his functioning as a servant of he 2nd respondent Devasthanam. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent Devasthanam is registered as an institution under Section 6(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (for short, ‘the Act’), whereas the 3rd respondent establishment is registered under Section 6(b) of the Act. Consequently, at a future point of time, this otherwise innocuous order of transfer would come in his way of seeking promotions or better prospects. It is not in dispute that the Commissioner of Endowments can exercise the power available to him under Section 39 read with Section 8 of the Act, but however, the Commissioner has resorted to this exercise obviously to ensure that there will be free flow of information and collection of evidence, if any against the petitioner. If the enquiry reveals that the writ petitioner is not guilty of any misdemeanor while functioning as a Senior Assistant with the 2nd respondent establishment, he will be perfectly legitimate and entitled to seek a transfer back to the 2nd respondent Devasthanam. The present impugned order dated 18.12.2010 is obviously a measure taken as a step-in-aid for collection of material, if any which might contain adverse content against the petitioner. If it is revealed that the writ petitioner is not otherwise guilty of any such misdemeanor, prompt and expeditious steps would be taken to redress the grievance nurtured by the writ petitioner. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interdict the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 23rd December 2010 ksld