WP/16416/2009 of G. Trimurthulu Vs The Commissioner of Endowments on 31 December 2014

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.16416 OF 2009

The writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the MemoNo.Rc.No.A2/18150/2009 dated 05.08.2009 issued by the 1[st]respondent.

As per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support ofthe writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as a JuniorAssistant in the year 1984 and subsequently he was promoted to thepost of Senior Assistant and later as Superintendent in the 2[nd]respondent temple. Thereafter on 08.07.2009, he was appointed asan Executive Officer in the temple of the 2[nd] respondent.

By the impugned proceedings, the 1[st] respondent-Commissioner, taking into consideration the allegations made by oneK. Subba Rao, Senior Assistant that the petitioner got promotion inanother institution other than his parent institution illegally, directedthe Executive Officer of the 2[nd] respondent to cancel the promotion ofthe petitioner as Superintendent. Hence, the petitioner challenges thesame on the ground that he is a Government Servant in terms ofSection 29 of the Act having been appointed as an Executive Officer ofthe temple with effect from 08.07.2009 and the 1[st] respondent doesnot have any jurisdiction to take any action against him. In that view ofthe matter, the 1[st] respondent-Commissioner directing the ExecutiveOfficer to take action is totally unsustainable. Even on merits, thepetitioner contends that his promotion as a Superintendent andthereafter his promotion as an Executive Officer are in order and theallegations made against him are totally unsustainable.

A counter-affidavit filed by both the respondents except reiterating the facts of illegal ground which has been raised by thepetitioner has not been controverted.

A perusal of the provisions of Section 29 of the Act reveal thatthe Executive Officer of the temple does not have the jurisdiction andin terms of Section 29 of the Act read with the Rules made thereunder,the Commissioner is the competent authority to take any action withrespect to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the writ petitiondeserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside theimpugned Memo. However, it is left open to the 1[st] respondent-Commissioner, who is the competent authority, to initiate proceedings,if he so desires, directing the Executive Officer of the 2[nd] respondent toinitiate appropriate action in accordance with the law. There shall beno order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in thiswrit petition shall stand dismissed.

Date:31.12.2014.Gk.

____________________________

CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

Gk.

WRIT PETITION No.16416 OF 2009

Date:31.12.2014