N.Ravindra Murthy vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2302 Tel

      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. 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

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

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

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

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

W.P.No.27183 of 2011 and batch, dt.05.07.2013

2002(1) ALD 537 (DB) W.P.No.36001 of 2022

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

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

(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

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

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

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