ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 8, the learned Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. This writ petition is filed with an amended prayer for issuance of writ of quo warranto against the respondent No. 8 questioning his authority to continue as “full additional charge” in the post of “executive officer” of the respondent No. 7 on the ground that it is violative of Section 107 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of Tirupati Town and the devotee of Lord Venkateswara. He is a “person interested” in the well being of the affairs of the respondent No. 7. Hence questioning the authority of the respondent No. 8 in continuing as Full Additional Charge for the post of Executive Officer of the respondent No. 7-Devasthanam. Section 107 of the Act 30 of 1987 deals with the qualifications for appointing Executive Officers and other officers in the Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam and the Government is the competent authority under Section 106 of the Act. Section 107(1) of the Act 30 of 1987 is as follows:

“107. Qualifications for Appointment of Executive Officer, Joint Executive Officer, Special Grade Executive Officer, Financial Advisor, and Chief Accounts Officer:

(1) A person to be appointed as Executive Officer shall be the one who is holding or has held a post of the District Collector or a post not lower in rank than that of a District Collector in any other service in the State.”

4. The respondent No. 8 was appointed in the year 1991 in the Indian Defence and Estate Service (IDES) which is Group A Civil Services Post under the Union Public Service Commission and it is governed by the Central Government service rules/conditions. The respondent No. 2 issued the proceedings dated 08.07.2019 deputing the respondent No. 8 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh upto 14.05.2022 or until further orders whichever is earlier. Then he was relieved from his duties in the Ministry of home affairs by the respondent No. 3 vide proceedings dated 09.07.2019. The respondent No. 4 issued G.O.Rt. No. 1576, GAD (SC-A) Department dated 10.07.2019 appointing the respondent No. 8 as Special Officer for Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams, Tirumala to discharge the functions of the Joint Executive Officer, Tirumala. Thus the deputation of the respondent No. 8 is commenced from 10.07.2019 forenoon upto 14.05.2022 and the terms and conditions of the deputation were mentioned in G.O.Rt. No. 1659, GAD (SC-A) Department dated 22.07.2019 as per Section 106(3) of the Act 30 of 1987. Later the respondent No. 4 issued another G.O.Rt. No. 2469, GAD (SC-A) Department, dated 02.11.2019 re-designating the post of the respondent No. 8 as Additional Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams from that of the Special Officer, Tirumala. The office of the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam fell vacant consequent upon the transfer of Sri Dr. K.S. Jawahar Reddy, IAS and vide G.O.Rt. No. 813, GAD (SC-A) Department, dated 08.05.2022 the respondent No. 8 was placed in Full Additional Charge of the post of Executive Officer until further orders. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of the respondent No. 8 to the post of Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam as Full Additional Charge is contrary to the qualifications mentioned in Section 107(1) of the Act 30 of 1987 as the respondent No. 8 is neither a District Collector nor holding an equivalent post of All India Civil Services Post since he was appointed to Group A Civil Services post under UPSC i.e., IDES. Hence the impugned order dated 08.05.2022 of the respondent No. 4 placing