The appointment of the 5th respondent as Commissioner of Endowments was deemed valid as he met statutory qualifications, and the lack of substantive evidence rendered the writ application unjustifiable.

Judgment :

Battu Devanand, J.

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 28.02.2025 in W.P.No.1770 of 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. The parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for convenience.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that

The 5^th respondent joined as Assistant Commissioner in the Endowments Department in the year 2000 and is presently working as Additional Commissioner-II. He served as the Executive Officer of Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple from 04.07.2007 to 01.09.2008 and from 02.03.2013 to 18.08.2019. He also worked as the Executive Officer of Sri MANSAS Trust, Vizianagaram for about 4 years in different points of time. During his tenure, the 5^th respondent committed several irregularities. The 4^th respondent surrendered him to the Government vide proceedings No.E1/COE15021, dated 29.06.2021. Later, a 3-men committee was appointed to enquire into the illegalities. The 3-men committee submitted a report, dated 16.07.2021 to the Commissioner pointing out irregularities/ illegalities committed by the 5^th respondent. Thereafter, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.494 Revenue (VIG.IV) Department, dated 06.08.2021 suspending the 5^th respondent, pending enquiry. The 5^th respondent filed W.P.No.18251 of 2021 wherein an interim suspension of the suspension proceedings, dated 06.01.2022 was granted. The 5^th respondent was reinstated as Additional Commissioner-II of the Endowments Department. The 1^st respondent issued U.O.Note No.2688771/SC.A/A1/2025, dated 21.01.2025 requesting the 2^nd respondent to place the 5^th respondent as in-charge to the post of Commissioner, Endowments until further orders. Later, by way of amendment, the appointment of the 5^th respondent as Commissioner, Endowments, Full-Additional Charge, was assailed. Therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition for issuance of writ of Quo Warranto against the 5^th respondent calling upon him to quit the office of Full Additional Charge of Commissioner, Endowments, appointed in pursuance of U.O.Note No.2688771/SC.A/A1/2025, dated 21.01.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent, since the appointment was made contrary to Articles 14, 21 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned Single Judge of this Court after having detailed consideration of the issue involved in the writ petition and upon careful examination of the material available on record, dismissed the writ petition by order, dated 28.02.2025 with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the petitioner preferred the present writ appeal.

5. Heard Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Sri Srinivas Dammalapati, learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned single Judge gravely erred in observing that the appellant should have made an averment or provided any explanation in the affidavit regarding the source and manner in which the documents, particularly, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3, were obtained and in the absence of such an averment, the writ petition amounts to nothing more than proxy litigation. He would further contend that it is a settled principle that the source or manner in which the documents were procured need not be disclosed and the test for admissibility of evidence, which is whether the evidence is relevant to the matters in issue. He would submit that the learned single Judge should have noted that neither the Government