A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, wherein it has been stated that the 1st respondentCommissioner by virtue of the powers conferred upon him under Sections 8 and 35 of the Act 30 of 1987, he is the competent authority for fixing up of cadre strength for each temple and accordingly the cadre strength was fixed and approved vide proceedings dated 07.12.1995. In the said proceedings, 1st respondent-Commissioner had categorically held that there is no necessity of the post of Foreman (Mechanic) to the respondents Devasthanam. It is further stated that when the representation was examined with reference to availability of posts in the approved cadre strength, requisite qualifications, qualifications possessed by the petitioner and relevant rule position, the non availability of Foreman post in the light of cadre strength have come to light. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued notice on 12.01.2007 to furnish the particulars of qualifications possessed by him for holding the post of Foreman (Mechanic) since he was having only I.T.I qualification as per the entries made in his Service Register. However, the petitioner did not furnish any reply to the said notice. Further, the Government had framed Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.888, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 08.12.2000 relating to the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions. As per the said Rules, the 1st respondent-Commissioner is the competent authority to approve the same. Considering all these aspects, the petitioner was repatriated to the cadre of Fitter in Transport Branch for want of sanctioned post vide office proceedings dated 29.12.2008 and
