M. Ramana Kumari and Others vs Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur and Others

Aggrieved by the proceedings in Rc.No. B3/8454/93 E.O.''s Estt. dated 21-10-1993 issued by the first respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

All these petitioners claim that they have been appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur through various proceedings in various posts somewhere in the year 1993 and they have been discharging their duties since then. While so, these petitioners allege that the present incumbent in the first respondent-office sought to terminate their services through the impugned proceedings on the instructions of the Commissioner, Endowments Department which action according to the petitioners is illegal inasmuch as the first respondent has no authority to terminate their services without giving notice to them and seek appropriate direction including quashing of the impugned proceedings.

The First respondent has failed a separate counter. The counter filed on behalf of the fifth respondent has been adopted by other respondents as the legal contentions are one and the same.

It is contended by Sri. M. Ramchandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners that all these petitioners were initially appointed by the then Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur by following necessary procedure in the year 1993 in various categories and since then they have been discharging their duties. Later, when there is a change in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur, the new incumbent sought to terminate the services of these petitioners on the instructions of the Commissioner, Endowments Department on the ground that the appointments of these petitioners are illegal as the then Deputy Commisioner, Endowments, Guntur had no authority to appoint these petitioners. Counsel states that if the respondents intend to take any steps including termination of the services of the petitioners, before contemplating such a course of action, the respondents have to give notice to the petitioners to this effect. Counsel states that no notice was given to these petitioners and they were not heard and the first respondent through the impugned proceedings has sought to terminate the services of the petitioners, which action, according to the Counsel would tantamount to violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, seeks appropriate direction including quashing of the impugned proceedings.

The tenor of arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents is that the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur has no power to make any appointments in the temples as either the Trust Board of the concerned temple duly constituted or the Executive Officer of the temple as the case may be, alone is competent to make appointments in the temples under the provisions of Section 35 of the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Therefore, it is stated that the appointments of these petitioners made by the then Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur are without authority and are liable to be set aside. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that there is no illegality in the impugned proceedings.

On an elaborate hearing of all the Counsel representing the petitioners and respondents and on a perusal of the provisions u/s 35 of the Act. 1 am inclined to hold that the appointments in 6(b) temples shall only be made their by the Trust Board of the temple duly constituted or by the Executive Officer as the case may be and the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments shall have no authority to make any appointments. But he has the authority only to approve the appointments made by any of the abovesaid two authorities. That being the rule position, I am inclined to hold that the appointments of these petitioners made by the then Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur are without authority and they cannot be sustained.

The Commissioner, Endowments Department though competent to rectify the anomalies, if any, committed by his subordinates, the procedure required is to give an opportunity to the affected parties for submitting their explanation. Though such procedure may not be available in the Act or under the rules framed thereunder, but the rule of the principles of natural justice is an accepted principle to be followed before initiating any steps against a particular employee. Keeping this principle in view, I am of the opinion, though the appointments of these petitioners made by the then Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Guntur are without authority as held by me, but if the respondents seek to to terminate the services of these petitioners, they must give reasonable notice to the petitioners and hear them before contemplating such an action. On notice being issued to the petitioners by the respondents and explanation being filed, it would be open to the authorities concerned to take appropnate action according to law.

The view I have taken, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside and accordingly they are set aside.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.