THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18280 of 2009 Date: 02.09.2009 Between: Dr.Movva Lalitha Kumar, Tirupathi,Chittor District. … Petitioner And Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Rep., by its Executive Officer, and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18280 of 2009 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent-TTD in keeping the 2nd respondent herein in Full Additional Charge to the post of Devastanam Educational Officer, Thirupathi vide proceedings dated 25.08.2009 is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that as per Rule 9 of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devastanams Employees Service Rules, 1989, r/w Annexure-II, the Principals of the Degree Colleges of TTD alone are eligible to be appointed for the post of Devastanam Educational Officer. It is alleged by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is working as a Principal of Oriental College, but not a Degree College and therefore not eligible to be appointed as Educational Officer. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Devastanam under instructions stated that even the college in which the petitioner is working as a Principal is an oriental college and that the 2nd respondent who is the senior most among the Principals of the colleges of the TTD has been rightly kept in-charge in the post of Devastanam Educational Officer. The fact that the 2nd respondent is the senior most Principal, could not be disputed by the petitioner. Though it is contended that the petitioner who is working as Principal of the college situated at Tirupathi should have been appointed as in-charge, instead of the 2nd respondent, who is at Secunderabad, nothing could be placed before this Court to substantiate the said contention. Having regard the facts and circumstances and particularly in view of the fact that the impugned appointment is only as a stop gap arrangement in the place of the regular Devastanam Educational Officer, who went on Earned Leave for two months, the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 02-09-2009 KLP