Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dismissing a petition challenging the proceedings of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, whereby it refused to transfer a Pradhana Archaka at Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple at Tirupati to Srivari Temple at Tirumala held that that the scope of judicial review in cases relating to transfers, which is made on account of administrative exigencies, is very limited and the petitioner cannot claim any vested right to seek posting at a particular place.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, A.P. Srinivasa Deekshitulu, belongs to the Peddintivari family, one of the four families traditionally performing Archakatvam at Srivari Temple, Tirumala, and Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple, Tirupati. Following the abolition of Mirasi rights, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.855 on 08.10.1997, sanctioning posts of Pradhana Archaka for Archaka Mirasidars. Based on this, A.P. Srinivasamurthy Deekshitulu of the Peddintivari family was appointed as Pradhana Archaka of Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple, Tirupati, on 09.06.1998. Later, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) resolved on 16.05.2018 to retire religious staff upon reaching 65 years of age and fill vacancies with eligible Mirasi families. Following this, A.P. Srinivasamurthy Deekshitulu retired, and the petitioner was posted at Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple, Tirupati, as Pradhana Archaka on 17.05.2018. Subsequently, on 08.09.2018, he requested a transfer to Srivari Temple, Tirumala, citing that his family had not served there for five years. However, the second respondent rejected his request for administrative reasons. The petitioner filed the present petition challenging this.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that after the abolition of Mirasi rights, the government sanctioned posts of Pradhana Archaka for Archaka Mirasidars. He claimed that his Peddintivari family had not served at Srivari Temple, Tirumala, for five years and that he should have been posted there after the retirement of A.P. Srinivasamurthy Deekshitulu. It was argued that he had a legitimate expectation to be posted at Srivari Temple and that the refusal of his request was unjust and against the rotational practice.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents argued that the petitioner had no vested right to be posted at a specific temple and that transfers were made based on administrative needs. It stated that the petitioner was already appointed as Pradhana Archaka at Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple, Tirupati, and that the emoluments for Pradhana Archakas were the same at both temples. The respondent also clarified that the Archakatvam service among the four designated families, including the petitioner’s Peddintivari family, was assigned based on temple requirements and experience, not strict rotation. It further argued that there was no necessity to transfer a Pradhana Archaka between the temples.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the petitioners did not place on record any vindictive or arbitrary attitude or malafide act of the respondents affecting the transfer of the petitioner. Further, the court stated that while the petitioner was at liberty to make representations to the employer, tabling his grievances regarding working at the transferred place, the petitioner did not mention any difficulties arising from working at the Sri Govindarajaswamy Temple.
Further, the court stated that the scope of judicial review in cases relating to transfers, which are made on account of administrative exigencies, is very limited, and the petitioner cannot claim any vested right to seek posting at a particular place. Further, it was stated that for the employer, having regard to the administrative contingencies, to decide on transfers, and such a decision, in the absence of any arbitrary and malafide attributions being made or established, cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The decision of the Court:
The Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: A P Srinivasa Deekshitulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Smt Justice Kiranmayee Mandava
Case No:WRIT PETITION NO: 42273/2022
Advocate for the Applicant: T Balaji
Advocate for the Respondent: V. Dyumani
Picture Source :
