impugned order came to be passed by the Commissioner on 20.09.2008 based on another report said to have been submitted by the Regional Joint Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada, on 01.07.2008. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no variation in the contents of the reports of 16.06.2008 and 01.07.2008. Further, the order of the Commissioner passed on 13.06.2008 has already been given effect to. The same could not have been cancelled insofar as the writ petitioner alone is concerned, without even providing an opportunity of hearing. It is also contended that there is a clear vacancy of Junior Assistant available with the 3rd respondent Temple and two Clerks of the said Temple were suspended pending enquiry against them and hence, in view of the man power requirement, the petitioner came to be transferred. It is, therefore, in the exigency of services, the petitioner came to be transferred to the 3rd respondent Temple. The income of the 3rd respondent Temple is adequate and sufficient to meet the expenses towards its establishment charges and for running other services. Strangely, no enquiry is conducted so far against the two erring officials of the Temple and quietly one of them has been reengaged into service and transferred elsewhere. No reasons are forthcoming as to why disciplinary action is not initiated against them. Still another man by name, Sri B. Srinivasulu, is continuing under suspension. This apart, as lately as on 03.01.2012, the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments Department, Kakinada, passed orders deputing the services of Sri K.V. Ramana Murthy, Junior Assistant, to the 3rd respondent Temple, who joined there on 04.01.2012. Therefore, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner that the services of a Clerk are essentially needed at the 3rd respondent Temple but still the petitioner is singled out for hostile treatment.
