IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 5730 of 2008 Between: The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Boggulakunta,Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Ch.Nityanandam,Superintendent, Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a Writ order or direction more paticularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P.Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.5311/2005 dated 07-12-2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent:Mr.Guru Gopal The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Assailing the orders dated 07.12.2007 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 5311 of 2005, the petitioner- Endowments Department filed the present writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that in pursuance of G.O. Ms. No. 395, dated 14.06.2000, the respondent herein and others were promoted by order dated 06.11.2000 as Executive Officers Grade-I, however, the said order could not be implemented as some Executive Officers filed batch of O.As questioning the validity of Section 29(3) A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (for short ‘the Act’) and also G.O. Ms. No. 395, dated 14.06.2000, and after the full bench of the Tribunal upheld the validity of Section 29(3) of the Act and struck down G.O.Ms.No.395, dated 14.06.2000, a committee was constituted for finalisation of the seniority list and the same was finalized only in November/December, 2006 and promotions were taken up in the month of December. In the mean while, the respondent retired from service on 30.04.2006, on attaining the age of superannuation and some other persons who have to be considered for promotion also retired from service. He further contends that no junior to the respondent was promoted and that one P. Ramaiah, who was senior and two ranks above the respondent was promoted only after December 2006 i.e., after retirement of the respondent on 30.04.2006, and therefore, the question of promoting the respondent even notionally earlier to the same does not arise. He further contends that the Tribunal below, without taking the above said facts into consideration, has come to an erroneous conclusion and allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per Section 29 of the Act 20% quota is fixed for temple employees for appointment to the post of Executive Officer, and in pursuance of the directions of this Court passed in W.P.No.14871 of 1997, which was filed by the respondent herein and others, the petitioner has issued orders in Rc.No.G1/43935/97, informing that the case of the respondent would be considered for appointment to the post of Executive Officer after finalization of the Rules. He further submits that the Rules were issued in G.O.Ms.No.262, dated 20.05.2002, prescribing the mode and qualifications for appointment of Executive Officers under Section 29 of the Act wherein 5th, 10th, 15th, and 18th vacancies were allotted to the temple employees. He further submits that the respondent passed all the required tests and he is eligible for appointment by transfer as Executive Officers Grade-I. He submits that in fact the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.395, dated 14.06.2000, to fill up the posts of Executive Officer Grade-I from temple employees under 20% quota. In pursuance of the said G.O., the petitioner has issued orders in Rc.No.G1/28036/2000-6, dated 06.11.2000, appointing the respondent as Executive Officer Grade-I, however, as G.O.Ms.No.395, dated 14.06.2000 was questioned before the Tribunal in O.A.No.3225/2000, the appointment of the respondent was not given effect to. He further submits that since the Tribunal upheld the validity of Section 29(3) of the Act and quashed G.O.Ms.No.395, the petitioner is bound to issue promotion orders to the respondent, but the petitioner is not promoting the respondent though he is having shortest term of service. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire material on record. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that though an order was passed by the petitioner in Rc.No.G1/28036/2006-6, dated 06.11.2000 appointing the respondent as Executive Officer Grade-I which itself shows that the respondent is eligible for appointment as Executive Officer Grade-I and he is also under the zone of consideration, but the said order could not be implemented due to the court litigation. So it is the duty of the petitioner to consider the case of the respondent for promotion and pass orders in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.262, dated 20.05.2002. The action of the petitioner in ignoring the case of the respondent and giving promotions to others on the ground that the respondent retired from service is not tenable. Admittedly, the orders dated 06.11.2000, passed by the petitioner are not yet cancelled. As the orders dated 06.11.2000 were not cancelled, the respondent is entitled for implementation of the said orders. Since the respondent has not asked for a relief to give effect to the proceedings dated 06.11.2000, and his prayer is only to consider his case for appointment as Executive Officer in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 262, dated 20.05.2002, the respondent ought to have been considered for appointment by transfer as Executive Officer with effect from 20.05.2002 i.e., from the date when G.O. Ms. No. 262 came into force. The Tribunal below after taking all the said aspects into consideration, has rightly allowed the O.A., and no exception can be taken thereto. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________​ T. MEENA KUMARI, J. _______________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. Date:18-03-2008. ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}