Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Sri Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 14 September, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.4947 of 2021
ORDER:
The petitioner assails the appointment of the 2nd respondent for the
post said to be that of Executive Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner of
the 3rd respondent-temple, by way of the present Writ of Quo Warranto.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Executive Officer of
the 3rd respondent-temple has to be in the rank of Assistant Commissioner
of Endowments. However, the 2nd respondent, who is in the rank of
Executive Officer Grade-I has been appointed as the Executive Officer of
the 3rd respondent-temple and the same is against the provisions of the
A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act,
1987 (for short „the Act‟) and the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments Service Rules (for short „the Service Rules‟).
3. The contention of the petitioner, in this writ petition, is that
the Service Rules prescribed certain methods of appointments and
qualifications, for various categories of officers, and the 2nd respondent
being in the rank of Executive Officer Grade-I, cannot be appointed to a
post, which is reserved for Assistant Commissioner.
4. Sri S. Sateesh Babu, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies
upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated
24.01.2020 in W.P.No.16903 of 2019 wherein, in a similar situation, a
Deputy Commissioner of Endowments appointed as Executive Officer was
removed from the said post, and submits that the ratio of the said
judgment would be applicable to the present case also.
2 RRR,J.
W.P.No.4947 of 2021
5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that
the judgment relied upon by the petitioner would not be applicable to the
facts of the present case. He further submits that there are two posts of
Executive Officer in the 3rd respondent-temple, one post being reserved
for an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner and the other post
being reserved for an officer of the rank of Executive Officer Grade-I. He
submits that his appointment to the post of Executive Officer of the 3rd
respondent-temple would not, in any manner, violative of either the
provisions of the Endowments Act or the Service Rules.
6. Heard Sri S. Sateesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Endowments.
7. The provision relating to the appointment of Executive
Officers for Hindu temples is Section 29 of the Act. The relevant part of
Section 29 reads as follows:
29. Appointment and duties of Executive Officer. - (1)
There shall be an Executive Officer for every Charitable or
Religious Institution or Endowment to be appointed by the
Government in the case of institutions and Endowments having
income of rupees one crore and above and by the Commissioner
in the case of other Institutions and Endowments included in the
lists published under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 6. In respect
of charitable or religious institutions or endowment having income
of less than rupees two lakhs per annum, and included in the list
published under clause (c) of Section 6, it shall not be necessary
to appoint an executive officer. The cadre of Executive Officers to
be appointed under this section for the respective institutions on
the basis of the income of the Institution or Endowment shall be
as may be prescribed:
Provided ........"
3 RRR,J.
W.P.No.4947 of 2021
8. This provision stipulates that the cadre of Executive Officers
to be appointed for any institution would be on the basis of the income of
the institution and shall be as may be prescribed. The word "prescribed"
has been defined in Section 2 (19) of the Act to mean - "prescribed by
Rules made by the Government under the Act".
9. In the present case, it is the contention of the 2 nd
respondent that no Rules were made by the Government for stipulating
the Grade of the officer to be appointed to an institution. The petitioner
also could not produce any Rules made under Section 29 of the Act. In
the absence of such Rules, it cannot be said that the rank of the officer,
who can be posted as an Executive Officer of a particular temple, has
been fixed. However, it may be noticed that a specific provision has been
made for appointment of the officers in the rank of Deputy Commissioner
as Deputy Executive Officers for seven specific temples by way of the
Amendment of the Service Rules by G.O.Ms.No.590, dated 19.11.2018.
10. The petitioner submits, in the alternative, that the website of
the Endowments Department shows the rank of the Executive Officer for
the 3rd respondent-temple be that of Assistant Commissioner.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of
the said information set out in the website, it must be taken that the
prescribed rank of the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-temple
would be Assistant Commissioner and the 2nd respondent cannot be
appointed to that post.
12. In reply, the 2nd respondent has also placed an official
website copy of the cadre strength of the 3rd respondent-temple, which
4 RRR,J.
W.P.No.4947 of 2021
shows that there are two posts available in the 3rd respondent, viz., one
post of Assistant Commissioner and one post of Executive Officer Grade-I.
13. In the judgment of the learned single Judge, mentioned
above, the question that came up before this Court was that the eligibility
of an officer of the department holding the rank of Deputy Commissioner
being appointed as the Executive Officer of the temple therein, even
though the said post was said to be reserved for an officer of Regional
Joint Commissioner. The learned Single Judge, in view of the specific
provision incorporated in the Service Rules, by G.O.Ms.No.590 dated
19.11.2018 that an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner was held
only the post of a Deputy Executive Officer of the temple and on that
basis had granted a Writ of Quo Warranto directing the removal of the
said officer as Executive Officer of the temple.
14. In the present case, the issue is about the eligibility of an
officer in the rank of Executive Officer Grade-I to occupy the post of
Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-temple. As no Rule or official
proceeding reserving the post of Executive Officer of the 3 rd respondent to
an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner, has been placed before
this Court, the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent, who is
in the rank of Executive Officer Grade-I, cannot be appointed as an
Executive Officer of the Temple, cannot be accepted.
15. Apart from the above, the 2nd respondent has also placed
the official website copy of the department showing that there is a post of
Assistant Commissioner and a post of Executive Officer Grade-I available
in the 3rd respondent-temple.
5 RRR,J.
W.P.No.4947 of 2021
16. There have also been claims and counter claims on the
appointment of the 2nd respondent and the counter allegation of the 2nd
respondent that the writ petition is a motivated petition filed to harass the
2nd respondent on account of the disputes between the 2nd respondent
and the husband of the petitioner. These issues cannot be gone into,
since a Writ of Quo Warranto is to be taken up only on the ground of
inability of a person holding the post and not on account of the alleged
misconduct of the said office holder. Therefore, these issues are not being
dealt with in the present writ petition.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
14th September, 2021
Js
6 RRR,J.
W.P.No.4947 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.4947 of 2021
14th September, 2021
Js
