Telangana High Court
WP/19866/2004 of P. Narasimhulu , Narasimha Rao, Vs The Commissioner Endowments Department, on 29 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 19866 of 2004 Between: 1 P. Narasimhulu @ Narasimha Rao, S/o. Papaiah, aged about 27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 19866 of 2004
Between:
1 P. Narasimhulu @ Narasimha Rao, S/o. Papaiah, aged about 27 years, Occ: Helper, R/o. Pulagala, Nellore District.
2 Ch. Jayaramaiah, S/o. Polayaiah, aged about 35 years, Occ: Helper, R/o. Chittaluru, Nellore District.
3 Ramanaiah, S/o. Chetaiah, aged about 25 years, Occ: Helper, R/o. Vadlapalli, Nellore District.
4 T. Chinnapenchalaiah, S/o. Roashaiah, aged about 25 years, Occ: Helper, R/o. Thodety, Nellore District.
5 M. Ratnaiah, S/o. Chinnamuneyaiah, aged about 40 years, Occ: Helper, R/o. Madapalli, Nellore District.
6 D. Thiripolu, S/o. Chenchaiah, aged about 25 years, Occ: Helper, R/o. Dokala, Nellore District. R/o. Dokala, Nellore District.
7 E. Janardhan, S/o. Chenchaiah, aged about 27 years, Occ: Helper R/o. Vegitila, Nellore District.
8 A. Ademma, W/o. Rajayaiah, W/o.Rajaiah, aged about 30 years, Occ: Helper R/o. Atmakur. Nellore District. R/o. Atmakur. Nellore District.
(All the petitioners are working in Penusila Lakshmi Narasimha Surya Temple, Penchalakona (v), Rapur Mandal, Nellore District).
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1 The Commissioner Endowments Department, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad.
2 The Regional Joint Commissioner, MZ-II, Endowments Dept., at Tirupathi.
3 The Dy. Commissioner of Endowments (S), Office of the CommissionerEndowments at Hyd.Endowments at Hyd.
4 The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Dept., Nellore.
5 The Executive Officer, Pensusila Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devastanam, Penchalakonda Village, Rapur Mandal, Nellore District. Penchalakonda Village, Rapur Mandal, Nellore District.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toIssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus by directing the Respondents 1 to 3 herein to regularize the services ofthe petitioners in their respective posts in the 5th Respondent temple and furthermay be pleased to direct the Respondents 4 and 5 to continue the petitioners in theirrespective posts in the 5th respondent temple pending regularization.
Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.J.ASHVINI KUMARCounsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS
Counsel for the Respondent No.5: Smt. N.Indrani, S.C.
The Court, at the admission stage, made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a Mandamus todirect the respondents 1 to 3 to regularise the services of thepetitioners in the 5[th] respondent-Temple.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that theCommissioner of Endowments Department, Hyderabad in hisproceedings dated 6.5.2003 fixed the cadre strength of the 5[th]respondent and therefore, whenever those posts are filled up,preference may be given to the petitioners as they have beenworking since 2002-2003.
The learned Government Pleader for the respondents has contendedthat the petitioners cannot be appointed in those posts, which have tobe filled in accordance with the rules and regulations of theEndowments Department. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merit.
The facts are not in dispute except the fact that the petitioners 4 and6 were not appointed by the 5[th] respondent. It is also not in disputethat the 1[st] respondent in his Proceedings Rc.No.C3/9254/2003,dated 6.5.2003 accorded sanction of certain posts for the 5[th]respondent-Temple. The 5[th] respondent has to fill up the sanctionedstrength posts in accordance with the rules and regulations of theEndowments Department.
Conclusion
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, a directionis given to the 5[th] respondent that whenever posts are notified by theGovernment, the 5[th] respondent shall consider the case of thepetitioners with reference to the previous experience put in by them inthe 5[th] respondent-Temple along with other candidates. However, itis made clear that the petitioners’ previous work in the 5[th]respondent-Temple does not confer any right for appointment.
The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above direction. Thereshall be no order as to costs.
_______________
(K.C. BHANU, J.)
29[th] December, 2004.
bcj
To
1 The Commissioner Endowments Department, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad.
2 The Regional Joint Commissioner, MZ-II, Endowments Dept., at Tirupathi.
3 The Dy. Commissioner of Endowments (S), Office of the CommissionerEndowments at Hyd.Endowments at Hyd.
4 The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Dept., Nellore.
5 The Executive Officer, Pensusila Laxmi Narasimha Swamy Devastanam, Penchalakonda Village, Rapur Mandal, Nellore District. Penchalakonda Village, Rapur Mandal, Nellore District.
6 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Endowments, High CourtBuildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
7 Two C.D. copies.