K BRAHMAIAH Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus and declare the action of the first respondent herein rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in his proceedings in Rc.No.B1/20912/2010, dt. 19.12.2011, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to G.O.Ms.No.1357 Revenue (Endowments.1) Department, dt. 18.7.2011 and Memo. No.38576/Endts-I(1)/2011, dt. 15.11.2011 and grant the consequential relief by declaring that the petitioner is eligible to be considered under the said G.O. and Memo for compassionate appointment in second respondent devasthanam and issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon 'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper.) Undaunted by yet another rejection, the fourth no less, the petitioner is again before this Court seeking compassionate appointment as a Junior Assistant in Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Srisailam, the 2nd respondent. He challenges the proceedings dated 19.12.2011 of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh (for short, 'the Commissioner ') rejecting his claim and seeks a consequential declaration that he is eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment under G.O.Ms.No.1357, Revenue (Endowments. I) Department, dated 18.7.2011.

(2.) THE petitioner 's father rendered service in the 2nd respondent temple for nearly 30 years. He died in harness on 9.6.2009. He is survived by his widow, four sons and a daughter. The petitioner is his third son. The first and second sons are said to have separated from the family during the father 's lifetime and are presently working as contract carpenters in the service of the 2nd respondent temple. They were so employed even during the father 's lifetime. The daughter is married and lives separately with her husband. The petitioner claims that at the time of the father 's death only he, his mother and his younger brother were dependent on him. The petitioner belongs to BC-B community.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this rejection, the petitioner and his mother filed W.P.No.14422 of 2010 before this Court. By interim order dated 23.6.2010, this Court directed the Commissioner and the 2nd respondent temple to consider appointment of the petitioner as a Junior Assistant in the second respondent temple on compassionate grounds, if he was otherwise eligible, as per law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner 's case was again rejected by the Additional Commissioner and Executive Officer (FAC) of the 2nd respondent temple, under proceedings dated 24.7.2010, on the ground that the Commissioner had issued orders in proceedings dated 6.4.2010 that no compassionate appointments should be made in temples as temples were not Government Departments and the GOs issued for compassionate appointment were not valid for temples.