THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.9805 of 2014 Date: 15.04.2014 Between :
Pulletikurthi Narayana Rao .. Petitioner and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.9805 of 2014 ORAL ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent temple, apart from perusing the record.
Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Shorn of extraneous particulars, it can be seen that a Veernam artist is required to participate in the daily Kalyanam of the presiding deity of the third respondent temple. As per the petitioner’s version, out of 13 posts of Veernam artists, 12 have been filled up and the last one is vacant. Asserting that his forefathers served the temple, the petitioner seems to have submitted a representation to the third respondent on 25.10.2012 along with another person, namely, one Sri Pendyala Suresh, to be appointed in the said vacant post.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the face of a clear vacancy, nothing prevented the authorities to appoint the petitioner in the said vacancy. He has qualified his submissions by stating that it is not a regular post and no salary is attached to the said post and that as and when the artist is permitted to perform, he would be given remuneration from and out of the offerings on that particular occasion. In any event, the learned counsel has urged this Court to direct the third respondent atleast to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel has resisted the claim of the petitioner and has further contended that the petitioner does not have any locus to demand a post, even that of a Veernam artist, which is to be filled in, if at all required, in terms of the process that is being adopted.
Be that as it may, it will not cause any prejudice to the interest of the third respondent, if they choose to dispose of the representation of the petitioner one way or the other.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 25.10.2012 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J Date: 15.04.2014
va