THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.1783 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the memo No.D2/39993/2008, dated 22.01.2011, issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner as Superintendent with all benefits. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk as per the orders of the Executive Officer of Sri Malyadri Laxminarasimha Swamy Temple, Malakonda, in the year 1987. Thereafter, he was transferred to Rentachintala Group of Temples. While so, vide proceedings dated 13.07.1990, he was transferred and posted as Junior Assistant in the establishment of Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Vykuntapuram, Guntur District, duly restoring the post of Junior Assistant in the said temple as a special case. As per G.O.Ms.No.1478, dated 17.11.1986, the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in the available existing vacancy in the said Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, and therefore, he made a representation to the Executive Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. The said representation was forwarded to the 1st respondent-Commissioner, Endowments Department, through the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department. By letter in Rc.No.B3/616/95, dated 25.01.1995, addressed to the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent has duly recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. Pursuant to the said recommendation, the 1st respondent vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.C1/4457/95, dated 30.01.1995, has upgraded the post of Junior Assistant and accorded permission to the Executive Officer to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant in the upgraded post. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant vide proceedings in Rc.No.A2/319/94, dated 04.02.1995, issued by the Executive Officer of Sri Lakshmi Padmavathi Sametha Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple, Vykuntapuram, Guntur District. Thereafter, vide proceedings in Rc.No.A2/456/2008, dated 18.08.2008, issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner was further promoted as Superintendent. While so, as per the memo in Rc.No.D2/39993/2008-1, dated 14.05.2010, issued by the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice, dated 30.09.2010, to the petitioner asking for his explanation to show cause as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Junior Assistant since he did not pass the required Departmental Test for promotion to the higher cadre, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 16.10.2010 informing that he has passed the requisite Departmental Test on 08.05.2010 itself. However, the 1st respondent issued the impugned Memo No.D2/39993/2008, dated 22.01.2011, directing the 2nd respondent to issue necessary instructions to the 3rd respondent to revert the petitioner to the cadre of Junior Assistant as per rules. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Doubtless, promotion to a higher post is not a matter of right to any employee, but every employee has right to be considered for such promotion and when the time for promotion arises, various relevant factors such as seniority, competency rectitude, antecedents, passing of Departmental Tests if so prescribed are to be borne in mind by the employer. When the petitioner is otherwise qualified, the promotion cannot be denied arbitrarily. 4. As seen from the impugned memo, dated 22.01.2011, it is evident that as per Rule 44 Annexure-III of G.O.Ms.No.1478, dated 17.11.1986, one should pass the Account Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I for promotion, as such, the contention of the petitioner that there were no rules of passing Departmental Test for promotion is not correct. However, since the petitioner is stated to have already passed the requisite Departmental Test on 08.05.2010 itself, he is duly qualified for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as well as Superintendent. But, without adverting to the rules governing the service conditions of the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued the impugned memo. Therefore, the impugned memo is liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned memo, dated 22.01.2011, issued by the 1st respondent and the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to take appropriate decision duly considering the explanation of the petitioner and also in accordance with rules governing the service conditions of petitioner. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 13.04.2011 v v