( 1 ) THE Writ Appeals by the State are directed against the interim orders passed in the Writ Petitions by a learned single Judge of this Court directing the appellants not to retire the petitioners- archakas from service on their attaining the age of 58 years and to continue them in service until further orders in the Writ petitions. When the Writ Appeals came up for hearing, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the writ Petitions were also taken up for hearing and accordingly both the writ appeals and writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE respondents-writ petitioners are the Archakas working in different temples under regulatory jurisdiction of the endowments Department of the State. By individual notices, they were informed that they will be retired from service with effect from 31-7-2001 before they attain the age of 65 years. Aggrieved by such notices, the petitioners filed the writ petitions for. a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the appellants respondents in seeking to retire them before attaining the age of 65 years as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and for a direction to continue them as archakas till they attain the age of 65 years. They also prayed for interim directions directing the respondents not to retire them from service before they attain the age of 65 years.

( 3 ) ON a prima facie satisfaction of the rule position relating to the age of superannuation of the Office holders and servants of endowments institutions, a learned single Judge of this Court granted interim directions not to retire the petitioners from service on their attaining the age of 58 years, but to continue them in service until further orders in the respective writ petitions. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the orders of the learned single Judge, the appellants -official respondents preferred the aforementioned appeals.

( 4 ) MR. Nooty Ramamohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners would submit that the Scheme of the Act would clearly show that the Archakas who had been serving religious institutions for a long time are not affected by reason thereof. The saving clause under Rule 47, the learned counsel would urge, applies in relation to the entire Act and the Rules and thus those who had been appointed prior to coming into the force thereof would not come within the purview thereof. Strong reliance in this connection has been placed on the decisions in SHAH BHOJRAJ kuverji OIL MILLS and GINNING factory V. SUBHASH CXHANDRA yograj SINHA, AIR 1961 SC 1596, S. SUNDARAM V. V. R. PATTABIRAMAN, air 1985 SC 582, MANGAL DAS k. DESAI v. SHASHIKANT R. DESAI, (2000) 9 SCC 28.

( 5 ) MR. Satyananarayana Prasad, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand would submit that the age of superannuation at 58 years had been uniformly fixed for all the employees and servants of the religious institutions including the archakas/ulthurai servants. The learned counsel would contend that rule 47 of the rules do not save the rules in their entirety but only Rules 36 to 46 thereof. It was submitted that no employee has a legal right to hold a post contrary to the provisions of the statute. Reliance has been placed on e. ROYAPPA V. STATE OF TAMIL nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555, K. NAGARAJU v. STATE OF A. P. , AIR 1985 SC 551 and in PRABHAKAR RAO V. STATE OF A. P. , air 1986 SC 210.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Endowments inter alia contends that the rules framed under the A. P. Charitable and hindu Religious Institutions and endowments Act, 1966 (for short old Act ) and under A. P. Charitable and Hindu religious Institutions and Endowments act, 1987 (for short "new Act) have no bearing to the case of the petitioners and that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief from this Court especially when the validity of Rule 9 of the 2000 Rules is not questioned.

( 7 ) IF Rule 47 is to be interpreted