Allowed

Sri Muralidhar Shrouthi and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC20 Dec 2021WP/541/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the mechanical rejection of applicants for Archaka posts. The Court held the impugned order was non-speakings and directed the respondent authority to re-examine eligible applicants under Section 34(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned rejection order; directed the 2nd respondent to re-examine the petitioners' cases under Section 34(3) within eight weeks.

Sri Muralidhar Shrouthi and 2 others Vs The State… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HrG^{H couRr'?T} l+E8ltli,:: .]:-T-"^-^ tsPttii'oiigin'l^{Jurisdiction)}

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶4

wRtT^{PETITIONNO:541 0F2020}

¶5

Between:

¶6

'3:.yu;?',iXi,X'r":r'ffi^{:l',i2".;t.,i"T?',1::/'i:,,t?#U'"t%"&3:::i':itl:B:'d} 2. DistrictSri AnkushaSharma^{Shrouthi'Sl9'Sr1fa1e911ar ShrouthiAged about} -Bat'ru'^{25 'years'} Adilabad occ. U nemplov"o'+I'^{ii]rlll o-i Venratelwa*N;;;;'C;idiv} District

¶7

s 5ii''c-ivino^{sharmashrouthi' q/." Pq!-q3:-:[r"o$} 333ll,l'^rX33!? " 6;..-U;;plbved R/o H No'0-4 Venkateswara "tP"Xi District. ...PETITIONERS

¶8

AND

¶9

'1 . The State of Telangana, Rep^{by its Secretqry Deoartment of Revenue} ( Endowments) s"tr."iii Ji'5';ci'i;l $ql;^{Xlitlni RaoB havan N H 44'} ir:it'E;,t,'X;;;ln^{rlid.i,nvo"i""uad,relansana - 500 063}

¶10

The Commissioner,^{f;[tffi;;6D'"pirtmtnt Bogulkunta' TilakRoad'}

¶11

Hvderabad Telangana - 500 001

¶12

ifr;H;;;i;'offi;;;^{onanqsarasyathi Devasthanam Basara}

¶13

(Village and Mandal)^{Nirmal DistrictI elangana}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith'theHlghCourtmaybepleased toissueadirection'orderorwritmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureoflVlandamusa' Declaring the action^{of the 2ndRespondentin issued L Dis No 81l1307712016'} dated 5/8/2019^{rejecting the proposal of the 3rd Respondentto appointthe} petitioners as Archa ka s/Pa richa rikas and Notification^{No 8/676/2019,} daled 23112t2019 notifying^{the posts of Archakas. Paricharikas. and AssistantCook} as arbitrary, contrary to the^provisions of^{the Telanganacharitableand Hindu} Refigious lnstitutions and Endowments^{Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987),illegal, unjust,} and violative of Article 14 of the constitution^{of lndia. b. consequently direct the} Respondents to accord approval for appointment of the^{Petitioners as Archakas/} Paricharikas and declare that the Petitioners are entitled to^{all the consequential} benefits that flow from the declaration sought for supra and direct^{the release of the} same. c. Declare that the Petitioners are entitled to exemplary costs and direct that the same be recovered from the personal funds of the officer concerned for having passed the order dated 51812019 and direct payment of the same to the Petitioners for having thrust this unwarranted lis on them to ensure accountability of public servants.

¶16

IANO:1 OF 2020

¶17

petition under S -.ctl the arridavit rired in s ,Jil l?';'H::::rjl;'::.il.ffiTj ;":::"j.i restrain the 3rd Resp< ndent from processing or acting upon the Notification No, 816761201S, dated 23t 1 2t2019. IA NO t2OF 2020

¶18

Petition under St ction 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in sr' rport of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operatior of the proceedings in L. Dis. No. dated 5/8/2019. "1113077/2O16,

¶19

Counsel for the petition rrs: SRI GODA SIVA counsel for the Respon rent Nos. t a z;-cp roR ENDOWMENTS Counset for the Respon tent No.3: sif x. jic-a'lrlrioHAN REDDv, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶20

The Court made the folk wing: ORDER

¶21

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVITI

¶24

P ITION N ot2 2

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This wrlt petilion is filed seeking the following relief :-

¶27

"..... to issue a direction order or writ more particutarty one in the nature of Mandamus a Dectaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in rssued L.Dis.No 81 113077/2016 dated 5/8/2019 rejecting the proposaI of the 3rd Respondent to appoint the Petitioners as Archakas/Paricharikas and Notification No. 8167617019 daled 7311212019 notifying the posts of Archakas Paricharikas and Assistant Cook as arbitrary contrary to the provisions of the Tetangana Charitabte and Hindu Retigious lnstitutions and Endowments Act 1987 Act 30 of^'1987 ittegat unjust and viotative of Articte^'14 of the Constitution of lndia^b Consequent[y direct the Respondents to accord approval^for appointment of the Petitioners as Archakas/ Paricharikas^and dectare that the Petitioners are entitled to at[ the^{consequentia[} benefits that ftow from the dectaration^{soughtforsupraand direct} the re[ease of the same c Dectare that the^{Petitionersare entitted} to exemptary costs and direct that the^{samebe recovered from} the personaI funds of the officer^{concernedfor havingpassedthe} order dated 5/812019 and direct^{paymentof thesame to the} Petitroners for having thrLISI this unwarranted^{its on them to} ensure accountabitity of^{pubtlc servants.... ".}

¶28

Heord Sri Godo Shivo,^{leorned counseloppeoringfor lhe} petilioners. leorne<1 Governmenl Pleoder for^{Endowments ond} Sri K.Jogon Mohon^{Recjdy, leorned Slonding counseloppeoringfor} the 3d respondeni.

¶29

It hos been conlended^{by the petilionersthot lhey ore fomily} members of Archokos^{who were employed in the 3rd respondent} Temple. They ore fully^{eligibleond quolified to be oppointedos} Archokos.

¶30

Seciion 34 of^{the A.P.Choritobleor clHindu Religious} lnstitulions onc Endowments^{Act, l 987} {for^{shorltheA cl') reodsos}

¶31

follows:-

¶32

34 Abotition of hereditary^{rights inMirasidars,} Archakas and other office holders^{andservants:-} (i) (a) Notwithstanding anything in^{any compromise} or agreer rent entered into or^{schemeframed or sanador grant} made or udgment, decree or order^passed by^{any Court, Tribunal} or other iuthorities^prior to the commencement of^{this Actand in} force on such commencement, atl rights,^{whetherhereditary,} contractr r[ or otherwise of a^person holding any office^{of the} Peddajee^/anagar, Chinna Jeeyangar, a Mjrasidar or an^{Archaka or} Pujari or any other office or service or^posts by whatever^name it is catted in any retigious institution or endowment shatl on the commen( lment of this Act stand abotished.

¶33

(t Any usage or practice retating to the succession to any offic or service or post mentioned in clause (a) shatl be void; (( Att rights and emoluments of any nature in cash or kind or t )th accrLred to any appertaining to any office or service or post nentjoned in clause (a) and subsisting on the date of commenr ement of this Act shatt on such commencement stand extjnguis red.

¶34

(; ) Every office holder and servant mentioned in Ctause (1) of s rb-section (1) hotding office as such on the date of commen ement of this Act shatt notwithstanding the abotition of the her( litary rights, continue to hotd such office or post on payment of onty such emotuments and subject to such conditions of servic^, referred to in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 35.

¶35

(. ) Notwithstanding anything contatned in sub-sections (1) and ( l) of this Section, the quatified members of those Archaka famities ryhich were continuing in archakatvam servjce under the provisior; of the repeated the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu F:tigious lnstitutjons and Endowments Act, 1966 and recogniz^,d as such by the competent authority shatI continue to have th ] right to archakatvam without having anv right to emotutn ?nts such famrlies used to receive earlier under Act 17 of 1966. H rwever, they shatl recejve emoluments^jn accordance with the sch€ ne under Section 144. "

¶36

¶37

Leorned counsel oppeoring for the peiitioners hod contended thot o^perusol of the obove soid Section mokes it very cleor thot Sub-Section 3 wos odded by omendment of Act 33 of 20Q7 with effecl from 03.01.2008. As per the soid Sub-Section, the quolified members of those Archoko fomilies, who were continuing in orchokotvom service under the provisions of the repeoled Acl, 1966 ond recognized os such by the competent oulhority sholl continue to hove the right lo orchokotvom without hoving ony righl to emolumenls such fomilies used lo receive eorlier under Acl l/ of 1966.

¶38

Leorned counsel oppeoring for the petitioners hod further contended lhol since the petitioners ore fully eligible ond quolified 1o be oppointed os Archokos, they hove submitted o detoiled representotion to the 3,0 respondent seeking oppointment os Archokos under Sub-Section 3 of Section 34 of the Act. The 3ro respondent wos pleosed to recommend the coses of ihe pelitioners to lhe 2nd respondent on 21.09.2018 for being oppointed os Archokos in lerms of Sub-Section 3 of Section 34 of lhe Act. The 2.c respondent hod nol considered the cose of the pe.liiioners in lerms of Sub-Seclion 3 of Seciion 34 of lhe Act ond mechonicolly rejected with o single line order vide proceedings doled 05.08.2019.

¶39

Leorned counsel oppeoring for lhe petilioners hod further conlended thol ofter rejecling the cose of the petitioners, the respondents hove issued recruitmenl notificotion for filling up the post of Archokos on 23.12.20)9. Chollenging the rejeclion order doted 05.08.20t9 os welt os Notificotion doled 23.12.2019. the present writ peiiiifir is filed.

¶40

Leorne I counsel oppeoring for lhe pelilioners hod contended l rot os per Sub-Section 3 of Seclion 34 of the Act, the coses of the tetitioners deserve to be considered, os the soid Act wos omendeJ by Act 33 of 2007 with effecl from 03.01.2008 ond the soid Ame tdment hos been corried oul by toking the difficulties foced by the \rchokos ocross the Stote ond in order to mitigote the hordship of \rchokos, Sub-Section 3 wos odded br7 woy of Amendment. Iherefore. lhe impugned rejection order possed by the 2n,r respor Jeni is lotolly wilhout opplicoiion of m nd o1d the 2nd respondenl h< s not considered Sub-Section 3 of Seclion 34 of the Acl ond wili cul ossigning ony reosons, he hos mechonicolly rejected'the c lse ol lhe petilioners.

¶41

Leorned counsei oppeoring for the peiitioners hod furlher contended tl':t even the odministrotive orders musl conloin reosons. But, ir lhe inslont cose, no reosons ore ossigned ond the issue wheiher t re odministrolive outhorily must ossign reosons or not fell for consi< erotion befofe the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in A.K.KRAIPAK Vt UNION OF rND,A,. ln the instont cose, o single line rejection order is^possed stoting lhot il^{is ogoinsl lhe provisionsof} Section 34 of tl = Act 30/87.^{Therefore,the coses of lhe pelilioners} deserve^'to be :onsldered^{in termsof the omendedprovlsion of} Sectlon 34 of^'lt e Acl.^{Therefore, the inrpugned reiectionorder is} lioble to be set csi<le,^{os ihe 2"c respondent hos foiled to consider} the cose of the oetitiorrers^{in terms of Sub-Sectiorr 3 of Section34 oJ} the Act ond nc reosons^{were ossigned while rejecling the cose of} the^pelilioners.

¶42

'^{AtRl9?o sc t50}

¶43

Leorned counsel oppeoring for ihe^{pelilioners hod lurther} contended thot the Nolificotion issued for oppointment^{to the post} of Archokos olso be sel oside becouse ihe cose of^{the petiiioners} deserves io be considered of the firsl instonce for oppointment os Archokos in lerms of Sub-Seclion 3 of Section 34 of lhe Acl. Therefore, oppropriole orders be^possed in the wril^petition directing the respondents lo consider lhe cose of^petilioners for oppoinlmeni os Archokos in terms of Sub-Section 3 of Section 34 of lhe Acl ond occordingly set oside the impugned rejection orders.

¶44

Leorned counsel oppeoring for lhe petiiioners hod further contended thoi the 2no respondent hod rejected lhe cose of petitloners by citing Seciion 34 of the Act, but whereos when it comes to olher condidoles, lhe very some 2nd respondeni hos oppointed some persons os Archokos under Sub-Section 3 of Seclion 34 of the Acl vide^proceedings doted 19.09.2011. The 2nd respondeni is loking duol slondords ond when it comes io opply lhe low in respect of petitioners, he hos mechonicolly rejected the cose of the^petiiioners ond when it comes to some other individuols, lhe 2nd respondent hocj oppointed them os Archokos in exercise of power ovoiloble under 5ub-Section 3 of Seclion 34 of lhe Acl ond on this ground olso, the impugned order is lioble 1o be se1 oside.

¶45

Leorned Government Pieoder Ior Endowmenls hod conlended thot the 2',r respondenl hos rejected lhe cose of the petilioners in terms of Section 34 of lhe Act. Section 34 of the Act consisls of Sub-Sections I to 3 ond when the heredilory Archokos were prohibiled under Section 34 of ihe Aci, the question of considering the coses of ihe pelitioners would not orise.

¶46

¶47

Leornec Government Pleoder hod further contended thot if the^petitioner: ore eligible, the coses of the petitioners would be considered in erms of Sub-Section 3 of Section 34 of the Act ond the 2nd respon ient would consider the cose of the^petitioners ond oppropriote or Jers would be^possed in occordonce with low.

¶48

Leorned Stonding Counsel oppeoring for ihe 3rcr respondent hod contende I thol the^petitioners ore entitled for considerotion of thelr coses for oppointment^'to the^post of Archokcs, os the 3rd respondent hc t recommended the cose of the^peti'tioners for oppoinlment o Archokos in terms of Sub-Section 3 of Section 34 of the Acl. The efore, oppropriote orders be^possed in the wril pelition.

¶49

This Cour , hoving consldered the rivol submissions mode by lhe porlles, is c' the considered view thol lhe 2nd respondent hos mechonicolly n lected lhe cose of the^{petitioners vide} impugned order doted 05 lB.20l9 ond^{the 2nd respondenthos noi exomined} the cose of the cetitioners under Sub-Section^{3 of Section34 of the} Acl ond Sub-Se,:tion 3 of Section^{34 of the Act mokes it obundonlly} cleor thoi the^{r uolified members of those Arcfrokoiomilies' who} were con'tinuing under^{the provisions of the Repecrled Endowments} Act, ore entille,^{I for being oppoiniedos Archokosprovided thol} they ore recogn^{zed by the competent oulhoriiy ond the impugned} rejection order^{ro non-speoking order ond for these reosons' the} impugned orde^{is set oslde ond ihe 2"o ls5pondeflt i; Cirectedto} re-exomine the coses^{of the petitionersofresh in lerms of Sub-} Section 3 of^{Se< tion 34 of the Acl ond poss opproprioteordersin} occordonce^{wil r low withino reosonoble period, preferobly within}

¶50

¶51

o^{period of eightweeksirom ihe dote o{ receipt of o copy of ihis} order.^{lt is needless to stotethot tjll th* 2uo respondent posses} orders,^{ihe respondents sholl not give eff ect to the Notiflcoiion}

¶52

doied^23.12.2019'

¶53

With the^{obovedirections'lhe writ petiiionls ollowed} No

¶54

costs

¶55

miscelloneous^{pelitions'if ony' sholl siondclosed'} Pending

¶56

SD/-B.SAryAV ATH GIST ASSISTANT

¶57

//TRUE^COPY// SECTION FFICER

¶58

To, 'u:,:iaT:rg,?,:,,HffiIRl,Tf,^{;:HJEil:i}fl ft $'li"liJ?sllfl1i'n'fl "'} ffi;;t.il;;;;rb,'d,^{relunsuna - 5oo 063. h--..r}

¶59

1. Th6 Commissioner.^{tnoo''irninttoepartment Bogulkunta' TilakRoad'}

¶60

"^{lil: "l*:} "'"'^{8rP.1ll; fll,'3]ra swatri D eva stha n a m B a sa ra (V iI I as e a nd} - Ivlandal) Nirmal District Telangana a i5fil,tc io'sii^{o"oi Siva.Adiocate [oP-uc]} .^,, I. i')JI EEJi"^{cnr,; E"oJi""i''ii' riiin co"tror the state or relangana} at Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶61