The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to direct the regularization of the petitioner's service based on qualifications, recommendations, and previous rulings, despite the existence of a circular memo imposing a ban on regularization.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not regularizing/absorbing the service of the petitioner in the existing vacancy in the post of purohit in the 3rd respondent Devasthanam inspite of the recommendations made by the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent Devasthanam on 23.11.2011, 08.07.2015 11.12.2016, 14.05.2018, 05.11.2018, 16.08.2019 as illegal and contrary to law and direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to regularize/absorb the service of the petitioner in the existing vacancy in the post of purohit in the 3rd respondent Devasthanm.

2. The petitioner studied Krishna Yajurveda from Sri Venkateswara Veda Patashala, Dharmagiri, Tirumala, which is part of Vedayayam, Divya Prabhand Archakatva, Purohitya. He also passed Pravesa Exam with serial No.330029 conducted by the Endowments Department. He is fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Archaka/Purohits and Veda Paranayadars at any temple in the State. Accordingly the petitioner has appointed as Purohit in the 3rd respondent institution and the same was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent vide resolution dated 29.03.2007. The petitioner was appointed as Purohit on contract basis initially for a payment of Rs.3,000/- as remuneration. Subsequently, remuneration was increased to Rs.6,000/- with effect from 14.11.2010.

3. Based on the submissions, the 3rd respondent submitted a report to the 2nd respondent on 08.07.2015, recommending to the Commissioner Endowments to regularize the service of the petitioner in the existing vacancy. Request was not considered by the respondents. Once again they have made a request on 11.12.2016 after retirement of Sri Y.S.Chandra Sekhar Shastri, Purohit who was working on regular basis. After his retirement on 31.08.2010, there is a need of regular purohits and it was also brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that there are no regular Purohits since more than 13 years. The said request was rejected by the respondents only on the ground of imposing ban. Finally, based on the request made by the petitioner on 26.10.2018, the 3rd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization vide proceedings dated 05.11.2018 stating that the petitioner is only Purohit working on contractual basis and performing all the duties of a regular purohit such as performing Abhishekhams for Srivaru and Ammavaru for three times a day, performing Mahanyasa Rudrabhishekham four times a day, Nitya Kalyanostavams, Suprabhatha Seva, Mahasivaratri Brahmostavams, Yagasala Poojas and other rituals at 19 associated temples and requested to pass appropriate orders regularizing the service of the petitioner and reminder was made on 16.08.2019. It is also mentioned that the Government has issued Memo dated 22.01.2021 for implementation of extension of the pay scales to Purohits in Archaka Scale. The Commissioner Endowments forwarded the said Government Memo and asked the 3rd respondent to submit a report for extension of the same. Accordingly, the petitioner’s pay scale was extended.

4. As the petitioner is working as Purohith in the 3rd respondent institution and he has completed more than twenty years, as per Section 35(3) of Endowments Act, the petitioner is the only eligible and qualified to be appointed as Purohit by regularizing the service, as per the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent since 2011 finally on 16.08.2019.

5. After notice, the 2nd respondent filed counter. According to the counter, the petitioner appointed as Purhoit on contract basis with a consolidated pay of Rs.3,000/- per month on 19.04.2007 in the 3rd respondent Devasthanam. The consolidated pay of the petitioner has been enhancing from time to time and accordingly, the petitioner is drawing consolidated pay of Rs.22,070/- per month. Based on the request made by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent submitted report to the 2nd respondent. After examining of th