Point of Law: If the amalgamated institutions are found to be capable of being managed by themselves, the orders of amalgamation may be revoked by the Commissioner in the interest of proper management of administration

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the proceedings in RC.No.A1/3474/2016 dated 20.07.2018, ignoring the seniority of the petitioner and promoting the fourth respondent and failure to implement the orders of the second respondent to promote this petitioner on par with the fourth respondent and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The petitioner while working as Record Assistant in Sri Bheemalingeswara Swamy Temple, Narasaraopet, was asked to work in Sri Madveeranjaneya Sametha Sri Kodanda Rama Swamy Temple (for short ‘Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple’), Seethanagaram, Tadepalli Mandal on deputation basis in the year 2003. He was continued in the same temple inspite of cancellation of deputation by way of transfer order dated 07.07.2007. Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Seethanagaram was given adoption to the third respondent/Devasthanam vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.G3/23317 /2007 dated 15.07.2007. As the existing two Junior Assistants in Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Seethanagaram were already promoted to the post of Executive Officer Grade-III and as there are no Record Assistants available in the temple, the petitioner was promoted in resultant vacancy of Junior Assistant vide proceedings dated 14.09.2013 by following the circular instructions of the Commissioner, Endowments Department. It is the contention that, the petitioner became permanent employee of Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Seethanagaram from 14.09.2013 by virtue of his promotion as Junior Assistant.

3. While so, Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Seethanagaram was amalgamated with the third respondent/Devasthanam vide orders of the second respondent in D.Dis.No.A1/38301/2013 dated 15.03.2014, as such, from the date of amalgamation i.e. from 15.03.2014, Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Seethanagaram was extinguished as independent unit and the same is merged with third respondent/Devasthanam with all its assets and liabilities along with servants of the temple to the third respondent/Devasthanam. The third respondent/Devasthanam became single unit after amalgamation for the purpose of management of the amalgamated temple as per Section 145(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘Endowments Act’).

4. While the matter stood thus, the third respondent has issued provisional seniority list of Junior Assistants vide Rc.No.A1/3474/2016 dated 25.10.2017 showing the name of this petitioner at Serial No.17, which is between one Ch.V. Narasimharaju and Smt. P. Sunitha. The same position was confirmed in final seniority list vide Memo Rc.No.A1/3474/2016 dated 23.05.2018 showing the name of this petitioner between the same persons referred above, at Serial No.19. The final seniority list was not challenged including the fourth respondent at any point of time before the competent authorities or before any Court of Law.

5. It is contended that, as per the Endowments Act and Rules framed thereunder, one should have passed in the Accountant Test for being promoted as Senior assistant and the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant is by way of non-selection i.e. only on the basis of seniority among the qualified persons besides minimum service of two years in the feeder category and the petitioner is senior to the fourth respondent, thereby he is qualified in all respects having qualified service of two years in the feeder category. But, in view of the final seniority list published, ignoring his seniority, the fourth respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant.

6. The petitioner made representation on 30.10.2018 to the second respondent to promote him to the post of Senior Assistant from the date of promotion of fourth respondent, who was his junior in the feeder category. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations, but ultimately, the second respondent directed the third respondent to promote this petitioner based on the rules as per seniority immediately