IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17328 of 2006 Between: Goruganthula Nagamani D/o. Late G.V. Kameswara Rao, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Revenue (Endowments) Secretariat 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Commissioner, Endowments Department, 3 Maharajah Alak Narayan Society of Arts & Science (MANSAS) Vizianagaram, .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner without following the due process of law, as illegal, void and against principles of natural justice and set aside the G.O.Ms.No. 1422 dt. 25-7-2005 and the consequential orders issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Rc No. C1/153/03 dt. 18-8- 2005 in so far as the petitioner is concerned, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KRISHNA RAO MODHALAVALASA Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. SIMON SUDHAKAR The Court made the following : O R D E R : One G.V.Kameswara Rao, Electrical Work Inspector in Maharajah Alak Narayan Society of Arts & Science (MANSAS),Vizianagaram, died while in service on 15.11.2002. His wife made application for compassionate appointment to his daughter Goruganthula Nagarani, who is no other than the petitioner herein. The authorities considered the said representation and appointed the petitioner as Attender on compassionate grounds under proceedings Rc.No.153/2003/A1, dated 07.07.2005. On the ground that certain appointments have been made by the Commissioner of Endowments contrary to the Rules in force, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1422 Revenue (Endowments.I) Department, dated 25.07.2005, canceling all appointments ordered by the Commissioner of Endowments in various Institutions/temples. Para.10 of the said G.O. reads as hereunder: “10. Government therefore considered that the proceedings issued by Commissioner of Endowments as detailed in the annexure suffers from regularity, proprietary and legality on the following grounds: i) the provisions of Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.888, Rev.(Endts.I) dept., dated 8.12.2000 have been violated and the procedure envisaged under Rule 46 of the said rules have been violated in making appointments without the media of Employment Exchange. ii) The Circular instructions issued in Rc.No.A3/26820/2003, dated 28.6.2003 by Commissioner of Endowments have not been adhered to without such instructions modified or annulled. iii) The instructions issued in Govt. Memo. No. 40189/Endts.II(1)/2004-1, dated 28.11.2004 have not been implemented in its letter and spirit. iv) The provisions of Section 57(2)(a)(i) of Act No.30/87 have been violated i.e., restricting the salaries of the Religious and Secular Estt. To 30% of its annual income calculated u/s.65 of Act No.30/87. v) The provisions of the A.P. (Regulation & Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of staff pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act No.2/1994) have been violated. vi) The provisions of A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions Archakas and Other Office Holders Recruitments, Qualifications and Emoluments Rules 2001 have been violated.” Consequent to the said G.O., the proceedings issued appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds came to be cancelled. Hence, this writ petition by Goruganthula Nagarani. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 23.08.2006. An interim suspension of the proceeding impugned in the writ petition also came to be granted on the even date vide W.P.M.P.No.21712 of 2006. 4. 3rd respondent entered appearance and moved WVMP No.2230 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 23.08.2006. One K.Ramachandra Mohan, Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and Executive Officer (FAC) of 3rd respondent, has sworn to the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. It is stated in the counter- affidavit that the petitioner suppressed the material facts and secured appointment on compassionate grounds. Para.3 of the counter-affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “3. In reply to para. No.3, I submit that, it is a fact that, the petitioner has failed SSC. It is also a fact that, the father of the petitioner Sri G.V.Kameswara Rao, died while he was working as Work Inspector. But it is not true to say that, the petitioner is entitled to get the appointment as she is only the legal heir of the said Sri G.V.Kameswara Rao. I submit that, Sri G.V.Kameswara Rao, left behind his wife, son Sri G.Nagaraju, working in the Indian Army and the petitioner herein. There is an earning member in the petitioner family i.e., her brother. Moreover the petitioner was married during the life time of Sri G.V.Kameswara Rao, and from the date of her marriage, she is no longer a member of the family of the deceased Sri G.V.Kameswara Rao. It is not true to say that, the 3rd respondent has requested the permission by way of proceedings dated 13.7.2004. It is fact that, the then Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent Institution has sought for permission of the Commissioner of Endowments vide his proceedings dated 5.1.2004 to place the representation of the mother of the petitioner before the 3 man committee. The Commissioner of Endowments, to place the request before the 3 man committee for sending report in this matter. Thereafter it seems that, basing on the report of the Regional Joint Commissioner Dt:17.3.2005, the Commissioner of Endowments, issued permission to the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent trust, for appointment of the petitioner as Attender. I submit that, in pursuance of the orders of the Commissioner of Endowments, the then Executive Officer of the trust has given the appointment order to the petitioner herein in Rc.No.153/2003/C1, Dt:7.7.2005 wherein it was specifically mentioned that, this appointment is purely temporary and liable for termination at any time without assigning any reasons therefore. I submit that, the very appointment order on which strength, the petitioner seeking continuation, says that, without assigning any reasons her services are liable to be discontinued. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable.” 5. When the Vacate Stay Petition came up for consideration, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner does not fall within purview of G.O.Ms.No.1422, dated 25.07.2005, and therefore, canceling the compassionate appointment of the petitioner by taking the shelter of G.O.Ms.No.1422, dated 25.07.2005 is wholly unsustainable. Learned counsel took me to the said G.O. in great detail to convince that the same is not applicable to the case of the petitioner since her appointment is on compassionate grounds. A further submission has been made that the petitioner is a divorcee and she is only the non-earning member of her father and therefore, she is eligible for compassionate appointment. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner suppressed the material fact of her brother being employed and therefore, the appointment secured by the petitioner on compassionate grounds suppressing the material fact has been rightly cancelled. 9. A fact remains that the petitioner is a divorcee even during the lifetime of her father. In the representations submitted by the mother of the petitioner, the fact of the petitioner being divorcee has been stated. The authorities proceeded to recall the appointment order on the ground that the case of the petitioner is covered under G.O.Ms.No.1422, dated 25.07.2005. I have gone through the G.O. It relates to the appointments made in contraventions of the Rule 46 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders etc. Rules, 2000. The appointments made on compassionate grounds are not covered under the said G.O. Therefore, canceling the appointment of the petitioner by referring the G.O.Ms.No.1422, dated 25.07.2005 is wholly unjustified. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings vide Rc.No.C1/153/03, dated 18.08.2005, issued by the 3rd respondent are hereby set aside. However, the authorities are at liberty to review the appointment of the petitioner after putting on notice in case the petitioner allegedly secured appointment by suppressing any material fact. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:28th January, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}