THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.36001 OF 2022
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly that of respondent No.4 in issuing the proceedings dt.12.09.2022 in R.C.No.A2/9962/22 whereunder respondent No.3 disposed of the representation of the petitioner dt.02.05.2022 in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.28130 of 2022 dt.04.07.2022 intimating that the petitioner's request for promotion is not accepted and instead, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of Executive Officer, Grade-II subject to availability of the vacancy, as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to promote the petitioner to the post the petitioner as eligible in terms of the recommendations of respondent No.3 and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
W.P.No.36001 of 2022 2
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant in Sivalaya Temple on 06.01.1988 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 01.08.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner served in various institutions and finally by selection process, the petitioner was appointed as a Person-in-Management on 13.08.2001 to discharge the functions of the Executive Officer at Sri Veeranjaneya Swamy Temple, Gattupalli. Subsequently, the petitioner was repatriated to Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Veerannagudem Village (Bonthapalli), Gumadidala Mandal, Sangareddy District.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is a graduate having studied B.A. and has passed all the departmental tests as prescribed under the Endowments Act and the Rules framed thereunder and he also passed Executive Officers Part-I and Part-II examinations etc., and is therefore governed by G.O.Ms.No.1478, Revenue (Endowments-VI) Department, dt.17.11.1986. It is further submitted that on a deeper perusal of the said G.O. and that since the petitioner has not served in any of the temples that are mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.1478, the said G.O. is strictly not applicable to him and even if it is made applicable, the petitioner stands W.P.No.36001 of 2022 3 benefited. It is submitted that in terms of the liberty granted by this Court in W.P.No.28130 of 2022, the petitioner pursued the matter with respondent No.4 and respondent No.4, by impugned proceedings, has opined that since the petitioner did not pass the required tests as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.888, Revenue (Endowments.I) Department, dt.08.12.2000 or G.O.Ms.No.1478, dt.17.11.1986, the petitioner will be entitled to be promoted only to the post of Executive Officer Grade II subject to availability of the vacancy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this impugned order is clearly illegal as G.O.Ms.No.888 is not applicable to the petitioner since it is promulgated in 2000, whereas the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on 01.08.1995 and therefore, since the G.O. is not applicable retrospectively, it cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.1478 is also strictly not applicable to the petitioner since the G.O. itself clarified that it is applicable only to the 8 temples mentioned in the G.O. It is further submitted that some of the employees who did not work in the 8 temples were also given benefit of G.O.Ms.No.1478 and therefore, the same benefit should also be extended to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.4 has erroneously come to the conclusion that the benefit of promotion W.P.No.36001 of 2022 4 cannot be extended to the petitioner with effect from 1995 and that no tests were contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.888, and G.O.Ms.No.1478 also does not prescribe so and even otherwise, the petitioner has passed all the requisite tests and therefore, there is absolutely no justification in denying the promotion to the petitioner. He therefore prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant relief to the petitioner as was given to other employees who have not worked in those temples under G.O.Ms.No.1478.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the writ affidavit and has further drawn the attention of this Court to G.O.Ms.No.888 dt.08.12.2000 to demonstrate that the Rules thereunder, except for Rules 5 and 16, shall apply to the Office Holders and Servants of the 8 temples given thereunder. Rule 5 deals with Schedule of Establishment, Pay and Allowances etc., and Rule 16 refers to leave entitlement of the Office Holders and Servants of those temples. Therefore, Rules 35 to 47 are applicable to only the Office Holders and Servants of the 8 temples enumerated thereunder and the tests prescribed under Rule 40 which are referred to by respondent No.4 are applicable to those employees of the 8 temples only. He has drawn the attention of W.P.No.36001 of 2022 5 this Court to G.O.Ms.No.1478, dt.17.11.1986 and particularly Rule 1 thereunder, wherein it is mentioned that the Rules shall apply to all Office Holders and Servants of all Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments and even under Rule 39 thereunder, there are special provisions for certain temples and the special tests prescribed under Rule 45 are applicable only to the Officers of those temples. It is submitted that even otherwise, the petitioner has passed the required Accounts Tests for Subordinate Officers Part-I and Endowments Departmental Tests Part-I and Part-II. He has referred to the revised final seniority list of Senior Assistants working in Zone-VI (Hyderabad), wherein the petitioner is placed at Serial No.31 and in the remarks column, it is mentioned that his seniority in Senior Assistant cadre will be with effect from 01.09.1998, after completion of 5 years in Junior Assistant cadre as per Rule 13 of G.O.Ms.No.1478, dt.17.11.1986. He also referred to para-7 in the counter affidavit, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner's services are governed by the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.1478 dt.17.11.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.888 dt.08.12.2000. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of K.Ram Gopal Raju Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, East Godavari W.P.No.36001 of 2022 6 District 1, wherein the learned Single Judge has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue/Endowments) Department, A.P., Hyderabad and another Vs. Chadavada Koteswara Rao and another 2. While considering as to whether the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.888 dt.08.12.2000 are applicable retrospectively, the Hon'ble Division has held that they are applicable to all the existing employees in the Religious and Endowments Department and further, Rules 1 to 35 thereof are applicable to all the temples and Rules 36 onwards are special provisions which are specifically made applicable only to the Office Holders and Servants of the 8 temples specified under Rule 36 thereof. Therefore, it was held that Rules 36 of the Rules of 2000 onwards are not applicable to all the temples. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner should be considered for promotion as per G.O.Ms.No.1478 dt.17.11.1986.
5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for Endowments Department relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.888 dt.08.12.2000 are 1 W.P.No.27183 of 2011 and batch, dt.05.07.2013 2 2002(1) ALD 537 (DB) W.P.No.36001 of 2022 7 also applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the year 1988 and he was promoted as Senior Assistant on 01.08.1995 without completing the prescribed period of 5 years stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.1478 dt.17.11.1986 and without passing the required departmental tests. It is submitted that the petitioner passed Endowments Act and Rules test on 16.11.1995 and Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I on 08.05.2010, i.e., after 15 years of promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant, which is against the rules and therefore, his seniority was fixed in the cadre of Senior Assistant with effect from 08.05.2010, i.e., from the date of passing of the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I and accordingly he was assigned seniority at Serial No.45 in the seniority list of Senior Assistants issued vide U.O. Note No.C1/45831/2011 dt.12.05.2012 and subsequently, in the year 2019 after effecting certain appointments in the cadre of Executive Officer Grade-II, his seniority was revised at Serial No.8 vide Rc.No.A2/2652/2019 dt.28.05.2019 duly modifying the earlier proceedings dt.12.05.2012. It is submitted that the seniority of the petitioner in the Senior Assistant cadre is final and cannot be reviewed or changed as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various orders and the Government Circular Memo No.57759/(SER.A), General W.P.No.36001 of 2022 8 Administration Department, dt.20.05.2004, i.e., where the seniority settled for more than 3 years, it need not be reviewed/revised/changed. As regards the contention of the petitioner that similarly placed persons in other institutions have been granted promotion as Executive Officer Grade-I, it is stated that an institution is a single unit for the purpose of recruitment, seniority and promotion and hence, the petitioner's services are to be considered in his parent institution only and further that in the year 2011, certain guidelines were issued for preparing seniority lists, basing on which, the petitioner was assigned seniority at Serial No.45 in the year 2012 and subsequently revised at Serial No.8 in the year 2019. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner for notional appointment to the category of Executive Officer Grade-I considering his length of service, qualification and Department Tests passed by him, is covered by G.O.Ms.No.262, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dt.20.05.2002 and Rule 3 thereunder prescribes the method of appointment to the posts of Executive Officer Grade-I and Grade-II and that under the said Rule, the Executive Officer Grade-I shall be filled
(i) by direct recruitment and W.P.No.36001 of 2022 9
(ii) by promotion from category (2), i.e., Executive Officer Grade-II and the departmental tests passed are Act, Rules and Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I, Category (2) is Executive Officer Grade-II where promotion is from category (3), i.e., Executive Officer Grade-III and the required tests to be passed are Act, Rules and Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I. It is submitted that since the petitioner has passed Subordinate Officers Part-I test in the year 2010, his eligibility for consideration of promotion arises from 2010 onwards only and as per the seniority list, he is presently at Serial No.2 amongst the eligible candidates who are under zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Executive Officer Grade-II and as there is no vacancy earmarked for his feeder category under the rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.262 dt.20.05.2002, his case will be considered soon after arising of vacancy for his feeder category.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the only issue to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Officer Grade-II reckoning his service from the date of his service as W.P.No.36001 of 2022 10 Senior Assistant from 01.08.1995 the date of promotion or from 08.05.2010 the date on which the petitioner passed the prescribed test for promotion. Since the petitioner was appointed in the year 1988, his service conditions are clearly governed by G.O.Ms.No.1478 dt.17.11.1986. As per the said Rules, promotion is governed by Rule 13, wherein it is mentioned that an employee shall be eligible for promotion from a lower category to a higher category after he has satisfactorily completed the probation and has put in a service for a minimum period of five years in the category from which he is to be promoted. This promotion shall, however, be subject to possessing the necessary qualifications under Rule 44. Rule 39 prescribes special provisions for certain temples. The Rules subsequent thereto are applicable to the Office Holders and Servants of the eight institutions referred to in the said Rule and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-III under Rule 44 would apply only to the employees of the said eight temples and not to the employees of other temples. Similarly, G.O.Ms.No.888, dt.08.12.2000 contains Rule 13 which also refers to promotion to a higher category if the employee has satisfactorily completed the probation and has put in a service for a minimum period of three years but in no case shall it be less than two W.P.No.36001 of 2022 11 years in the category from which he is to be promoted. Under the said Rules also, Rules 36 onwards referred to the 8 temples mentioned therein and the necessary qualifications for promotions are mentioned in Annexure-III thereunder. G.O.Ms.No.262 dt.20.05.2002 refers to the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Subordinate Service Rules of 2002 and Rule 3 thereunder provides for method of appointment and appointing authority. Executive Officer Grade-II is to be appointed by promotion from category (3), i.e., Executive Officer Grade-III or by transfer from the category of Senior Assistants of Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service in the Endowments Department and Senior Assistants working in the institutions published under Section 6 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Act other than the Regional Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner cadre institutions. The petitioner claims to be falling in the category of Senior Assistants. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner was promoted in the year 1995 as Senior Assistant without his fulfilling the conditions for such promotion and thereafter, his seniority is being considered in the cadre of Senior Assistant from the date on which he has passed the necessary examination and by taking the same into consideration, his seniority has been fixed. Under Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.262 dt.20.05.2002, the unit of W.P.No.36001 of 2022 12 appointment is the respective zone and the petitioner is working in Zone-VI and therefore, his seniority will have to be decided within the officers of the said Zone. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is not challenging the seniority fixed by the officers, but he is only seeking consideration of his case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1478, Revenue (Endowments-VI) Department, dt.17.11.1986. As stated by the learned Government Pleader for Endowments, the petitioner's seniority is at Serial No.8 in the cadre of Senior Assistants and at present at Serial No.2 and therefore, as and when a vacancy arises, the petitioner should be considered for promotion.
7. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 13.09.2023 Svv