( 1 ) THE writ petitioner is the appellant. He is aggrieved by an order dated 15-3-2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition no. 8011 of 1990 whereby, and whereunder the writ petition claiming for the following reliefs was dismissed. "that the Hon ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and call for the entire records leading to and in r. C. No. A2/740/90 E. O. S. Estt. , dated 23-5-1990 from the file of the Deputy commissioner Endowments Department, kurnool, seeking to appoint Executive officer to the petitioner institution and quash the same as arbitrary, mala fide, illegal, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction and grant such necessary reliefs. "

( 2 ) MR. M. VIDYASAGAR, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this appeal. Drawing our attention to the finding of the learned single Judge, he would submit that as the Commissioner was the appointing authority so far as the post of executive Officer is concerned, the writ petition ought to have been allowed having regard to the fact that such appointment had been made by the Deputy Commissioner. The material portion of the impugned order reads thus:"this Court in G. RAMANA MURTHY v. GOVT. OF A. P. (1997 (4) ALT 769 (D. B.) clearly held that the Commissioner is competent to appoint the Executive officer. The Supreme Court in pannalal v. STATE OF ANDHRA pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 1023 ). also upholds the validity of Section 16 of the act. "

( 3 ) THE order impugned in the writ petition is dated 23-5-1990 wherein the deputy Commissioner Endowments department, Kurnool purported to be relying on the basis of Rc. G2/16293/90, dated 10-5-1990 issued by the Commissioner of endowments, purported to have appointed an Executive Officer in relation to the yadalla Pitchaiah Chetty Charities, cuddapah.

( 4 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 inter alia submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order having regard to the provision contained in sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments act, 1987 ( the Act for brevity ). It is not in dispute that the appointment and duties of executive Officer are enshrined in terms of section 29 of the Act, which insofar as the some is relevant reads thus: "sec. 29. Appointment and duties of executive Officer: (1) The Government may constitute not more than three charitable or religious institutions or endowments each of whose annual income is rupees fifty thousand but does not exceed rupees one lakh into such groups as may be prescribed. (2) For each such group of charitable or religious institutions or endowments there shall be appointed an Executive officer for exercising the powers and discharging the duties conferred on him by or under this Act. (3) The Government may, for purposes of this Act, constitute such grade of executive Officers, prescribing their appointing authorities and authorise them to exercise such powers and discharge such duties as may be prescribed: provided that twenty per cent of vacancies in each grade of Executive officers shall be filled by the employees belonging to the institutions or endowments of prescribed grade; provided further that, it shall be competent for the Government to appoint a Regional Joint Commissioner, a Deputy Commissioner or an Assistant commissioner as an Executive Officer.

( 5 ) IT is accepted that pursuant to or in furtherance of the power conferred upon the state in terms thereof, no rules have yet been prescribed. It, however, appears that rules known as the Endowments Executive officers Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 were enacted by the Government. In terms of the said Rules, the Commissioner had the power to make appointment of an executive Officer in the absence of any statutory rules made thereu