VEDALA TATACHARYULU Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (hereinafter "the 1966 Act") was passed and brought Into force sometime in 1966. In J978 the State Government framed rules, known as Executive Officers Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter 'the 1978 Rules"). In 1987 the A P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (herein after the 1987 Act') was .enacted and brought into force. However, no Rules have been framed under the 1966 Act continue to operate. On 11-6-90 the Commissioner of Endowments Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad issued an order under Section 29 (3) of the 1987 Act appointing 16 temple clerks as Executive Officers in Grade HI. The Commissioner of Epdowmchts directed the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to post the said 16 promotees accordingly to religious institutions. This was challenged by the appellant herein by way of the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by his detailed judgment and for reasons stated therein, dismissed the same. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Hearing rival submissions of the respective counsel and going through the impugned judgment, we find no merit in this appeal, and this, as will presently be seen for more than one reason. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1715/88 has held that by virtue of sec. 155 (2) of the Act exercised by the Commissioner of Endowments under the 1966 Act, was saved. It was further held that under section 29 read with section 33 of 1987 Act, the power of appointment under the 1987 Act would be operative only when Rules are framed under the New Act and till then the pre-existing position would continue. The Division Bench ruling aforesaid was binding on the learned Single Judge. It is also binding upon us. Even otherwise, we are in agreement therewith. The emerging position thus is that as no rules relating to appointment of Executive Officers have yet been framed under the 1987 Act, the rules framed in 1987, being the Executive Officers Subordinate Service Rules, under the 1966 Act would continue to operative. In the result the Commissioner of Endowments continues, as before, to have jurisdiction. The learned judge was, therefore, right in dismissing the petition on this ground.

(3.) We also agree with the learned Judge that the Petitioner had earlier filed W P No. 224 of 1991, but had therein not challenged the main order dated 11-6-1990 of the Commissioner of Endowments appointing 16 temple Clerks as Executive Officers, but had challenged merely the consequential posting order dt. 28-6-90 which was only an order posting the 4th respondent as Executive Officer to Sree Ranganayaka Swame Temple, in place of Sri N Gandhi Raju, the then Executive Officer. Not having challenged the main order dt. 11-6-90 of the Commissioner of Endowments, it was not open to the Writ petitioner to challenge a mere consequential order of posting made on 28-6-90. We also find that there were no bonafides on the part of the Writ petitioner. The Commissioner of Endowments has been, admittedly, appointing Executive Officer to the temple in question from 1965 onwards. The order appointing the 4th respondent as Executive Officer was in exercise of the same power of the Commissioner of Endowments under which he had earlier appointed Sri N Gandhi Raju as Executive Officer. Moreover, the Writ petitioner himself was not affected by the order appointing the 4th respondent as Executive Officer. If at all, it would be the erstwhile Executive Officer, N. Gandhi Raju who may be effected, but he had not chosen to make any grievance. The learned Judge also expressed some doubt that the Writ petitioner was pleading by proxy the cause of N. Gandhi Raju who has been replaced by the 4th respondent. Yet another ground set up against the Writ petitioner was that the order dated 11-6-90 has been sought to be challenged by the Writ petitioner several months thereafter, by the present writ petition filed on 7-2-91. The petition also thus suffers from delay and laches.