The appointment of a single trustee who is an Executive Officer working under the Endowments Department is contrary to law.

JUDGMENT

M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, is filed by the appellant/writ petitioner questioning the order, dated 04.01.2022, passed in Writ Petition No.162 of 2022 where under the appointment of respondent No.5 as a single Trustee was suspended but allowed him to continue to discharge the functions of an Executive Officer for the temple pending further orders.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the learned single Judge.

3. The writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the action of respondent No.3 in appointing respondent No.5 as single trustee vide proceedings in Rc.No.A1/2316/2021/ADM, dated 03.01.2022, to Sri Butchi Rama Lingeswara Swamy Temple, Official Colony, Visakhapatnam Town and District as illegal and arbitrary.

4. Case of the writ petitioner is that initially, his grandfather was appointed as trustee - cum - archaka to the subject temple and during his lifetime, he served the temple and thereafter, father of this petitioner performed archakatvam in the subject temple. Thereafter, the petitioner has taken the charge of archakatvam in the subject temple. Since his childhood, he used to attend to the temple along with his father for performing archakatvam services. Thereafter, he was paid remuneration of Rs.500/- since 01.01.2004 onwards. His archakatvam services were recognized in the temple but he was removed from service for rendering service in the temple by the impugned order and appointed respondent No.5 as a single trustee to the temple. The same is questioned on various grounds.

5. The petitioner raised several contentions and the learned single Judge, upon hearing the argument of both the writ petitioner and the respondents, passed the order under challenge based on the judgment of the learned single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in Bulusu Kesava Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 (6) ALD 282. However, respondent No.5 was allowed to continue to discharge the functions of an Executive Officer for the temple pending further orders.

6. Aggrieved by the latter part of the order of the learned single Judge, the present appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent on the ground that when once respondent No.5 was removed and whose appointment is declared as illegal and contrary to law laid down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bulusu Kesava Rao's case (cited supra), continuation to discharge the functions of an Executive Officer is illegal and contrary and requested to issue a direction setting aside the direction issued in favour of respondent No.5 to continue him as an Executive Officer of the subject temple.

7. Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, supported his contention whereas Sri T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Rajini Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Endowments, would contend that the order was passed even without affording an opportunity to respondent No.5 to make submissions by filing an appropriate counter and therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge is against the principles of natural justice and the order passed by the learned single Judge suspending the appointment of respondent No.5 as single trustee itself is contrary to law and requested to confirm the order passed by the learned single Judge to the extent of continuing him to discharge the functions of an Executive Officer for the temple pending further orders whereas Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments, would contend that several serious allegations were made against the appellant/writ petitioner more particularly, about misappropriation of funds and in those circumstances, the learned single Judge passed an order to continue to discharge the functions of an Executive Officer for the temple and in those circumstances, the order to the extent adverse to the appellant/writ petitioner can't be set aside and re