THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 14484 OF 2000 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents, in recruiting and filling up the post of attender existing in the 2nd respondent – Devasthanam with a candidate other than the petitioner ignoring the petitioner’s seniority in the N.M.R. post, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to fill up the post of attender by regularizing his services. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as an N.M.R worker in the 2nd respondent – Devastanam in the year 1991. In October, 1991 he, along with 168 others, was terminated from service. The petitioner filed W.P.No.13810 of 1991 and, by virtue of the interim order dated 24.10.1991, he was permitted to continue in service Thereafter, the interim order was vacated with a direction that the petitioner’s case be considered in future recruitment. The writ petition was finally disposed of on 6.12.1999 directing the respondents to consider regularization of the petitioner’s services and to grant him time scale of pay as he was working in the 2nd respondent – Devasthanam. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent requested the 1st respondent to regularize the petitioner’s services. The 1st respondent, however, rejected the petitioner’s request for regularization on the ground that the establishment charges had crossed the statutory limit of 30% of the annual income of the Institution; and the petitioner’s case would be considered as and when the establishment charges fell below the 30% ceiling. The petitioner would refer to the cases of 26 other N.M.Rs. whose services were regularized pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.13450 of 2990 and batch even though the establishment charges had crossed the 30% statutory limit. He would refer to the cases of others who were appointed as attenders despite the establishment charges not falling below 30% of the annual income. He would seek a similar relief in this writ petition. In the absence of any of those N.M.Rs, appointed as attenders, being arrayed as respondents in this writ petition I see no reason to examine the petitioner’s contention of discrimination (State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma[1]). Section 35 of Act 30 of 1987 relates to appointment of office holders and servants, and sub-section (4) thereof provides that the fixation of cadre strength, qualifications, method of recruitment, pay and allowances etc of office holders and servants of charitable institutions and religious endowments, shall be such as may be prescribed. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 35(4), read with Section 153, of Act 30 of 1987, the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) were made. Rule 43 thereof relates to pay and allowances. Under sub-rule (1) thereof, the pay, dearness allowance, house rent allowance and other allowances of employees shall be on par with the scales applicable to the State Government employees of similar posts and status; whenever there is a revision in the scales of pay, D.A., and H.R.A., in the case of State Government employees, employees of these institutions are also eligible for such revision of pay, D.A. and HRA. Under the proviso to Rule 43, salaries of office holders and servants of religious institutions shall not exceed thirty percent of its annual income calculated under Section 65 of Act 30 of 1987. The statutory limit for the expenditure to be incurred towards salaries is 30% of the annual income of the religious institution concerned. In the light of the specific averment in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s services could not be regularised, as extending the benefit of regular scales of pay would result in the 30% statutory limit being exceeded, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition. Sri D. Seshasayana Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that this Court should at least direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as and when the expenditure of the temple falls below the statutory limit of 30% of the annual income. I have no reason to doubt that, as and when the annual salary expenditure of the 2nd respondent falls below 30% of its annual income, the cases of all eligible persons, including the petitioner herein, shall be considered for regular appointment in accordance with law. In the light of the specific stand of the respondents regularisation of the petitioner’s services would result in the establishment charges exceeding 30% of the annual income of the Devastanam, I see no reason to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner herein. The writ petition fails and, is accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________ 23-7-2010 asp [1] AIR 1991 SC 1260