The High Court disposed of a writ challenging the dismissal of the second petitioner from a temple post due to non-participation and the satisfaction of the first petitioner's grievance via subsequent appointments. The court held no further issues survived.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
Writ Petition No. 26886 of 1996
Between
P.Anil Kumar and another ..Petitioners
AND
The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of ..Respondents Andhra Pradesh and another
:: JUDGMENT ::
9.3.2007
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
Writ Petition No. 26886 of 1996
Two petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking relief as under:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.SVBSD/1/96 dated 12.12.1996 under the directions of the 1st respondent as illegal and void and consequentially to direct the Respondents to continue the petitioners as Shashvatha Chanda Pujaris of Sri Veerabhadra Swami Vari Temple, Korivi, Warangal District with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
On behalf of the Commissioner of Endowments, counter affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the cadre strength of the subject temple was fixed at three posts viz., one Archaka and two Upa Mukhya Archakas on 7.1.1999 and that the petitioner No.1 has been appointed as Upa Mukhya Archaka in the time scale attached to the post on 12.1.1999 and he has already joined duty and is working as such. It has been asserted that two other qualified persons are also appointed against the other two sanctioned posts. Thus, the petitioner No.1 had no further grievance to ventilate in the above matter.
Further, the second writ petitioner did not turn up for performing any duties in the temple and he is obviously not interested even soliciting any further service in the temple. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners also submits that since the second petitioner is not evincing any further interest in the matter as set out supra, to the extent of the second petitioner is concerned, the above writ petition is not surviving, for his non prosecution. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, the grievance of his, is already redressed.
Hence, no further issue survives in the writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed, but however, without costs.
NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO.J.
9.3.2007 psr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives in respect of the second petitioner given his lack of interest in further service at the temple.
Whether the grievance of the first petitioner remains unresolved after the cadre strength fix and appointment of additional qualified persons.
P.Anil Kumar
another
Commissioner of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh
another
Nooty Rama Mohana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
