THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 71 of 2008 Date: 16.11.2009 Between: 1 T.R.V. Rama Krishna and others. ..... APPELLANTS AND V. Prem Kumar Rao and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 71 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This appeal is directed against the order of a learned single judge of this Court made in Writ Petition No. 26504 of 2006, dated 7.12.2007 whereby and whereunder the learned single judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner. The facts in brief are that the writ petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single judge assailing the proceedings bearing Rc. Nos. E5/48153/2006-1 and E5/48153/2006-2, dated 7.12.2006 of the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein. According to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, the appellants/respondents 3 and 4, who were appointed initially as Junior Assistants in Hyderabad District were transferred to Nellore and Mahabubnagar Districts long ago. Since the transfer was effected on their own request, they cannot be permitted to reckon their seniority in Hyderabad District and they are not entitled to be promoted as Executive Officer Grade III. He further alleged that the action of the respondent- authorities in promoting the appellants as Executive Officers Grade –III is arbitrary and illegal. While opposing the contentions, the respondent-authorities filed a detailed counter before the learned single judge. They also raised an objection before the learned single judge with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. The learned single judge, by the order impugned in this appeal, has allowed the writ petition by setting aside the orders dated 7.12.2006. He also directed the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner for being promoted to the post of Executive Officer Grade-III, if he is otherwise found eligible. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants-respondents 3 and 4 have filed the present appeal. Sri N. Gurugopal, learned counsel for the appellants while relying on Section 29 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,1987 (for short ‘the Act’) would contend that as per this Section, 40% of vacancies in third grade Executive Officer posts and 20% of the vacancies in the other two Grades of Executive Officers shall be filled by the employees belonging to the institutions or Endowments of prescribed Grade. He further submits that in the instant case, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, who is working as Junior Assistant in an institution prescribed under the Act is seeking promotion to the post of Executive Officer, by transfer and as such, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner cannot approach this Court straight away without exhausting his remedies before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. He, therefore, contends that the learned single judge instead of dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable, has erroneously allowed the same. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Sri P. Balakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has supported the impugned order and states that the same does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner is seeking promotion to the post of Executive Officer Grade-III, which is undisputedly a ‘civil post’. He is seeking the said promotion by way of transfer from the feeder category of Junior Assistant having worked as Junior Assistants in the Institutions prescribed under the Act, he has to necessarily approach the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and he cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in L. CHANDRA KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS([1]), the A.P. Administrative Tribunal alone has got jurisdiction to decide the issue in question. Hence, we are of the opinion that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner cannot approach this Court straight away without exhausting the remedies available to him before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal and the writ petition ought to have been dismissed by the learned single judge on the ground of maintainability. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned single Judge and direct the 1st respondent-writ petitioner to approach the Tribunal by way of appropriate application. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the 1st respondent-writ petitioner to approach the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad by way of appropriate application within four weeks from today and on such application being filed by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, the Tribunal shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law, without going into the aspect of limitation. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 16th November, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J Note: Furnish c.c. in one week. B/o pnb [1] AIR 1997 SC 1125