VEDALA TATHACHARYULU Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is one of the hereditary trustees of Sri Ranganayakaswami temple at Peddavaram in Guntur District. He assails an order dt. 11-6-90 issued by the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Endowments, under Section 29(3) of the A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', appointing 16 temple clerks as Executive Officers in the proposed III Grade (presently IV and V Grades). The 4th respondent is one of the 16 promotees. The 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to post the 16 promotees to various institutions. Petitioner submits that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Act, to appoint Executive Officers. He therefore challenges the order of the 2nd respondent dt. 11-6-90.

(2.) Pursuant to the above order, the 3rd respondent gave posting orders in his proceedings dt. 28-6-90 to the above promotees. He posted the 4th respondent as Executive Officer in Sri Ranganayakaswami temple and directed him to take charge from Sri M. Gandhiraju, Executive Officer, Rajavolu. The 4th respondent took charge on 30-6-90. Petitioner filed W. P. 224/91 and obtained an ex parte interim order of stay of the order dt. 28-6-90 in W. P. M. P. 256/ 90. It appears that another hereditary trustee had filed W. P. 14373/90 and obtained interim order on 19-11-90. The interim order dt. 9-1-91 in W.P.M.P. 256/90 in W. P, 224/91, filed by the petitioner was vacated on 7-2-1990. It is on the same date that the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order dt. 11-6-1990 passed by the 2nd respondent in pursuance of which the 3rd respondent had issued order dt. 28-6-90 which is under challenge in the earlier proceedings.

(3.) The main ground which the petitioner urges is that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to appoint Executive Officers under Section 29 of Act 30 of 1987. He submits that it has been so held by this court in Vasudev Pershad v. Commr. of Endowments (1990) 2 APLJ (SN) 18 (2). It is his case that under Section 27 of the Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, the power of appointment of Executive Officers was entrusted to the Commissioner/ Dy. Commissioner etc. whereas Section 29 of Act 30 of 1987 confer such power only on the Government as found by my learned brother Neeladri Rao, J. in the above decision. He also submits that the appointment of an Executive Officer exclusively to Sri Ranganayakaswamy temple imposes undue burden on the resources of the temple. In other words, he is in favour of continuance of an Executive Officer who will be in charge of some other temples also. Counsel also submitted that till such time as Rules are framed under Section 29(3) of the Act for constitution of grades and classification of Executive Officers, the Commissioner has no power of appointment. He referred to a judgment of a Division Bench of this court in W. A. 644/1974.