CDJ Law Journals

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, i. To declare the order of the 2nd respondent vide L.Dis.No.C1/13025(43)/61/2024, dated 16.01.2025 whereunder permission was accorded to promote the 4th respondent as Mukya Archaka by exempting from passing of requisite examination for the post of Mukya Archaka, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to Act 30 of 1987 and the rules made thereunder and ii. to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the petitioners candidature for promotion in the existing vacancy of Mukya Archaka in the 3rd respondent Devasthanam, though he is eligible, qualified and next in line in the feeder category as per G.O.Ms.No.261, Revenue (Endowments-1), dated 20-05-2002, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India iii. Consequently, direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Mukya Archaka in the 3rd respondent devasthanam in one of the existing vacancies of Mukya Archaka iv. and pass such other orders.

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the order of the 2nd respondent vide L.Dis.No.C1/13025(43)/61/2024, dated 16.01.2025, enabling the 3rd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Mukya Archaka who is qualified and eligible, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other orders.

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the said direction granted in W.P. No. 1620 of 2025, dated 28.01.2025 and pass such other orders.

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate interim order granted in IA no. 1/2025 in WP No. 1620/2025 dt.28.01.2025 and order dismiss the main writ petition as devoid of merits and pass such other orders.)

1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the Proceedings issued by Respondent No.2 vide L.Dis.No.C1/13025(43)/61/2024 dated 16.01.2025 whereunder permission was accorded to promote Respondent No.4 as “Mukhya Archaka”, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The Petitioner herein was initially appointed as “Paricharika” pursuant to the notification in Rc.No.A1/4133/2007 dated 02.06.2013 issued by Respondent No.3. Subsequently, the Petitioner had passed ‘Vara’ and ‘Pravara’ examinations in the years 2013 and 2019 respectively and was promoted as “Archaka” on 23.06.2021 along with other “Paricharikas”. The next promotion post available to the Petitioner is “Mukhya Archaka”.

3. The Rules governing the promotions were framed vide G.O.Ms.No.261, Revenue (Endowments-1), dated 20.05.2002 in exercise of power conferred under Section 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short “the Act 30 of 1987”) and were named as “Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Archakas and Other Office Holders and Servants Qualifications and Emoluments Rules, 2001” (for short “the Rules, 2001”).

4. As per Rule 7 of the said Rules, the post of “Mukhya Archaka” is classified as Category-III and the Method of Recruitment is by promotion from Category-IV i.e. “Archaka” i.e. the post held by the Petitioner. The requirement for promotion to the post of “Mukhya Archaka” is that one need to have passed ‘Vara Agama’ examination conducted by the Endowments Department.

5. In the seniority list of “Archakas” issued on 09.01.2025 vide Proceedings No.A1/872/2020, the Petitioner was shown at Sl.No.8 with the status of ‘qualified’ since he had passed all the departmental tests required for further promotion. In the very same seniority list, the candidates at Sl.Nos.1 and 5 were shown as ‘not qualified’ as they did not pass requisite examination/departmental test as required for further promotion as “Mukhya Archaka”. On 11.01.2025, Respondent No.3 promoted the persons shown at Sl.Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the five (5) available vacancies of “Mukhya Archakas” and kept one post vacant. As the Petitioner was qualified in the ‘Agama’ examination, the Petitioner was expecting his case to be considered for further promotion.

6. As mentioned above, as the persons shown at Sl.Nos.1 and 5 in the seniority list were ineligible for appointment as they did not have requisite qualification, Respondent No.4 who stood at Sl.No.5 gave a representation on 11.11.2024 to Respondent No.2 seeking for promotion to the post of “Mukhya Archaka”. Consequently, on the instructions of Respondent No.2, Respondent No.3 submitted a report on 21.12.2024 stating that Respondent No.4 has not qualified in the departmental test i.e. ‘Vara’ examination and did not complete ‘45 years’ of age for further promotion as “Mukhya Archaka”.

7. The Petitioner also made a representation on 09.01.2025 for promotion as “Mukhya Archaka” in the 6th vacancy. In spite of the said representation, Respondent No.2 issued instructions to Respondent No.3 vide L.Dis.No.C1/13025(43)/61/2024 dated 16.01.2025 stating that under the powers vested in him under Section 8(1)(2) of the Act 30 of 1987 exempting Respondent No.4 from passing the departmental tests for promotion to the post of “Mukhya Archaka” subject to the condition that Respondent No.4 would secure required qualification within one year. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

8. A Counter-Affidavit is filed by Respondent No.4 whereunder it is stated that pursuant to the impugned orders of promotion, Respondent No.4 had been discharging duties as “Mukhya Archaka” and that the Petitioner did not challenge the actual order of promotion. It is stated that by the time of passing interim order by this Court on 21.08.2025, Respondent No.4 had joined in the promotional post and has been discharging duties therein.

9. It is stated that the Petitioner is far junior in the cadre of “Archaka” and Respondent No.4 was appointed as “Archaka” on 20.06.2013 whereas the Petitioner was appointed in the cadre of “Archaka” on 23.06.2021 i.e., 8 years later and cannot seek for promotion ahead of Respondent No.4. It is stated that ‘Vara’ test as required under the Rules for promotion to the post of “Mukhya Archaka” was not conducted periodically and the last of the examination as required under the Rules was conducted in the year 2019.

10. It is stated that the notification to conduct the examination was issued on 17.07.2024 and though Respondent No.4 had applied vide ID.No.20249112103 dated 28.08.2024, the ‘Vara’ examination is yet to be conducted. In that context, the impugned order of promotion was conditional subject to the Petitioner qualifying ‘Vara’ examination within one year. It is further stated that under Rule 35 of the Service Rules, the Commissioner is competent to relax any Rules in favour of any individual for just and equitable reasons. Therefore, the impugned order need not be interfered with.

11. In the Counter-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it was stated that Respondent No.4 was appointed as regular Archaka through the recruitment process in the year 2013 and passed ‘Pravesa’ examination in terms of the Rules and joined duty on 23.06.2013. As per the seniority list, Respondent No.4 stood at Sl.No.5, whereas the Petitioner stood at Sl.No.8. The people at Sl.Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 possessed requisite qualification for the post of “Mukhya Archaka” i.e., ‘Vara’ examination conducted by Respondent No.2. Accordingly, they were promoted as “Mukhya Archakas” out of 6 vacancies. The person at Sl.No.1 in the seniority list also did not possess the requisite qualification of ‘Vara’ examination and he was not interested in promotion.

12. It is stated that Respondent No.4 submitted a representation on 11.11.2024 to Respondent No.2 stating that departmental tests were not conducted for the last 4 years and that notifications were issued in September 2024 for which Respondent No.4 has applied and requested to consider his case for promotion on conditional basis.

13. It is further stated that Respondent No.3 submitted a report on 21.12.2024 stating that since Respondent No.4 has not crossed ‘45 years’ of age, he is not entitled to total exemption for possessing qualifications specified in Rule 7 of the Rules and therefore, the Respondent No.2 did not invoke Rule (8) of the Rules of G.O.Ms.No.261, dated 20.05.2002, but accorded permission to Respondent No.3 to give promotion to Respondent No.4 as “Mukhya Archaka” on conditional basis i.e. subject to fulfilment of required qualification within one year.

14. It is further stated that the Endowments Department did not conduct departmental tests for the last four (4) years due to administrative exigencies and recently a notification was issued in September, 2024 to conduct departmental tests for which Respondent No.4 has applied. On considering these facts, it was stated that Respondent No.2 had exercised his power conferred under Section 8 of the Act and issued Proceedings dated 16.01.2025.

15. Contentions: The learned Senior Counsel Sri P. Gangaiah Naidu assisted by M/s. G. Bhanu Priya, learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the power of relaxation is circumscribed by the condition in the Rules. It is further contended that the Rule providing for relaxation from passing departmental tests is only for individuals, who have crossed the age of 45 years and the power conferred to the Commissioner is in so far as the individuals who have crossed the age of 45 years and the Commissioner has no power in so far as the individuals who have not crossed the age of 45 years.

16. Though the impugned order was passed in exercise of power conferred under Section 8 of the Act 30 of 1987, the learned Senior Counsel points out that Section 8 of the Act 30 of 1987 is subject to the other provisions of the Act and the power of relaxation provided under Section 8 of the Act 30 of 1987 is not an absolute power, but is subject to the conditions specified in the Rules, 2001. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in N. Ravindra Murthy v. Shri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple, Bonthupally, Medak District and Others((2008) 3 ALT 287), G. Ravinder v. Commissioner for Endowments, A.P., Hyderabad and Others(2007 (4) ALD 587) in support of his contentions.

17. The learned Senior Counsel Sri V. Venugopal Rao appearing for Respondent No.4 would submit that the power conferred under Section 8 of the Act 30 of 1987 is not restricted and for just and equitable reasons, the Commissioner can always relax the Rules in favour of individuals. It is further contended that Respondent No.4 was appointed as “Archaka” in the year 2013 and is 8 years senior to the Petitioner and promoting the Petitioner to steal a march over Respondent No.4 on account of non-qualification of Respondent No.4 in departmental test i.e. ‘Vara’ examination, which is not conducted since 2019 would be unfair. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the Judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Gunda Ramana Murthy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others(1997 (5) ALD 285).

18. The learned Government Pleader for Endowments echoed the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4.

19. Issue:

The issue that falls for consideration is that whether the appointment of the Respondent No.4 is sustainable?

20. The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Archakas and other Office Holders and Servants Qualifications and Emoluments Rules, 2001 framed under Section 35(3) and 153(1) of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 governs the appointments to the post of “Mukhya Archaka”. The Method of Appointment to the post of “Mukhya Archaka” is by promotion from Category-IV i.e. “Archaka” and the eligibility is that the person should have passed the "Archaka Pravara” examination. Rule 7 is extracted below;

“7. Method of appointment and qualifications: The method of appointment and the qualifications of the Archakas shall be as follows:-

Sl.No.	Catego ry	Name of the Post	Method of Appointment	Qualifications	Age
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
1.	I	Pradhana Archaka	By promotion from Category-II	Must have passed Archaka Pravara Examination conducted by the Commissioner of Endowments	--
2.	II	Upa Pradhana Archaka	By promotion from Category- III	Must have passed Archaka Pravara Examination conducted by the Commissioner of Endowments	--
3.	III	Mukhya Archaka	By Promotion from Category-IV	Must have passed the Archaka Pravara Examination conducted by the Commissioner of Endowments	--
4.	IV	Archaka	By direct recruitment or by promotion from the post of Paricharika or cook	Must have passed the Archaka Pravesa Examination conducted by the Commissioner of Endowments	Must have completed the age of (18) years & must not have completed the age of (38) years for direct recruitment.

21. Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2001 enables the Commissioner to exempt a person from possessing qualifications specified in Rule 7, provided the person has completed ‘45 years’ of age and is well-acquainted with ‘Pooja Vidhanam’ in the said ‘Agama or Sampradayam’. The Rule 8(2) reads as under;

                  “8. Prescribing of qualifications:

                  (1) ……..

                  (2) In the case of appointment by promotion, the Commissioner may exempt a person from possession qualifications specified in Rule 7 of these rules provided that if he completed (45) years of age and is well acquainted with Pooja Vidhanam in the said Agama or Sampradayam. If it is found necessary the Commissioner may also require such person to appear for oral test as may be decided by him.”

22. The promotion is as per seniority and suitability as provided under Rule 9 of the Rules, 2001 and this assumes significance in the context of this case and this Rule 9 of the Rules, 2001 is extracted below;

                  “Rule 9::Method of Promotion:

                  The Promotion from one category to another shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability.”

23. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is 8 years junior to Respondent No.4 in the cadre of “Archaka” and there is no dispute to the suitability and competency of Respondent No.4 to be appointed as “Mukhya Archaka”. The only objection urged is that the Petitioner had qualified in ‘Archaka Pravara’ examination i.e. departmental examination which is the eligibility criteria for appointment as “Mukhya Archaka”, while the Respondent No.4 did not qualify in the said examination and is aged under 45 years to be exempted from passing the examination as per Rule 8 of the Rules, 2001 as extracted above.

24. Firstly, Rule 8 of the Rules, 2001 speaks about exemption from qualifying in the departmental examination, subject to the acquaintance with ‘Pooja Vidhanam’ in the said ‘Agama’ or ‘Sampradayam’ for persons aged above ‘45 years’. In this case, no exemption was given to the Respondent No.4 from qualifying in the departmental examination, but the appointment was subject to qualifying in the “Archaka Pravara” examination i.e., departmental examination within one year. In the event, Respondent No.4 fails to qualify in the examination within the time specified, consequences would entail.

25. The reason for exercising such a power was that the ‘Archaka Pravara’ examination was last conducted in the year 2019 and the next notification was issued only on 17.07.2024. Though Respondent No.4 submitted an application vide ID No.20249112103 on 28.8.2024, the examination is yet to be conducted. In the absence of regularly conducted examinations, the last of which was in 2019, it would be impossible for any aspirant to acquire the said qualification. In that scenario, it would be unfair on Respondent No.4 to be denied promotion for want of qualification in the departmental examination, though senior by 8 years to the Petitioner in the cadre of “Archaka”, more so, when the competency and knowledge in pooja vidhanam and sampradayam are not in question.

26. It is to be noted that the insistence of qualification in departmental examination could be well founded, provided the examination was conducted in regular intervals. In the absence of the examinations being conducted for over 6 years, the insistence of the qualification in the examination is impossibility and law does not compel performance of impossible task. The maxim ‘Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia’ is closely connected with the latin maxim ‘Impotentia Excusat Legem’, which means impossibility excuses the law and inability excuses the non-observance of the law.

27. In Herbert Brooms Legal Maxims in Chapter V dealing with above quoted maxim under the fundamental legal principles observed at page 163 as under;

                  “Where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him, and has no remedy over, there the law will in general excuse him and though impossibility of performance is in general no excuse for not performing an obligation which a party has expressly undertaken by contract, yet when the obligation is one implied by law, impossibility of performance is a good excuse.”

28. As the departmental examination was not conducted, the impugned order consciously states that the promotion was effected as per seniority and the same is in consonance with Rule 9 as extracted above. It is to be noted that, considering the complexity of the administration of temples, the power of superintendence was conferred on the Commissioner under Section 8 of the Act 30 of 1987 unlike any other Act, where the residuary, supervisory power is vested with the Government. As the impugned order is just and fair, no interference is called for.

29. The Judgments cited by the counsels were with regard to scope of power under Section 8 of the Act exercised by the Commissioner under normal circumstances. The underlying facet of any statutory power conferred on statutory authorities is to ensure fairness in action and such a power is implicit and inherent. In the peculiar facts of this case, the cited case law cannot be of avail to the facts of this case.

30. In K.K. Gohil v. State of Gujarat and Others((2015) 9 SCC 652), the Supreme Court considered a similar issue as in this case. In that case, the Rule was that a person in Government employment was entitled for higher grade scale on completion of 9 years of service subject to passing of the departmental examination. The Petitioner therein i.e. in K.K. Gohil (4 supra) was initially granted benefit and subsequently withdrawn on the ground that the Petitioner did not qualify in the departmental examination though the same was not conducted for years. As the departmental examination was not conducted, the Supreme Court restored the benefit to the Petitioner.

31. Apart from the above reasons, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution is equitable and is designed to protect fairness. It is not obligatory on the Court to issue writ merely on strict analysis of legal provision when the same would lead to an inequitable situation, as in this case. It would be apt to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society5 at Paragraph Nos.24 and 26, which are extracted below;

                  “24. The primary purpose of the writ is to protect and establish rights, and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law. It is designed to promote justice (ex debito justitiae) and its grant or refusal is at the discretion of the court. The writ cannot be granted unless it is established that there is an existing legal right of the applicant, or an existing duty of the respondent. Thus, the writ does not lie to create or establish a legal right but, to enforce one that stood already established. While dealing with a writ petition, the court must exercise discretion, taking into consideration a wide variety of circumstances, inter alia, the facts of the case, the exigency that warrants such exercise of discretion, the consequences of grant or refusal of the writ, and the nature and extent of injury that is likely to ensue by such grant or refusal. Hence, discretion must be exercised by the court on grounds of public policy, public interest and public good. The writ is equitable in nature and thus, its issuance is governed by equitable principles. Refusal of relief must be for reasons which would lead to injustice. The prime consideration for issuance of the writ is, whether or not substantial justice will be promoted.

                  26. Thus, it is evident that a writ is not issued merely as is legal to do so. The court must exercise its discretion after examining pros and cons of the case.”

32. In the light of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

33. No order as to costs.

34. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size Show / Hide