G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of mandamus declaring the orders issued by the 1st respondent-Commissioner of endowments, dated 6-5-1997 as illegal and contrary to law and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion as P. A. to Executive Officer in accordance with the Rules. ( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY when the 3rd respondent was retired, respondent No. 4 took over as P. A. to Executive Officer and consequently an amendment petition was moved challenging his appointment to the post of P. A. to the Executive Officer and the said amendment was allowed on 23-6-1999. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he has been working as Superintendent in Sri durga Malleswara Swamy Devasthanam, vijayawada, subject temple, for the last several years and therefore he is entitled for promotion as P. A. to the Executive Officer. According to the provisions of A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, hereinafter called as the act , all the transfers of the servants of the Institutions had to be made among the institutions and that power is vested with the Commissioner, but there is no power to transfer the Departmental Officers to post as P. A. to the Executive Officer, which is prohibited under Section 39 of the Act. ( 4 ) THEREFORE he submits that the appointment of respondent No. 4 is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for promotion as P. A. to the Executive Officer. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the subject temple submits that the Commissioner has effected the transfers and there is no alternative except to accept the posting made by the Commissioner. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader is not present even though the matter is reached the Board, but however in the counter it is stated that the Rules under section 35 (4) of the Act have not been framed. As such the rules framed under section 31 (5) of repealed Act 17/66 govern the field. Under Rule 39 of the said Rules a special provision was made to the office holders and servants of the eight major institutions which includes the 2nd respondent-Institution. As such the rules framed under section 31 (5) of repealed Act 17/66 govern the field. Under Rule 39 of the said Rules a special provision was made to the office holders and servants of the eight major institutions which includes the 2nd respondent-Institution. In the classification of the employees of eight institutions, there is no post of P. A. in the Ministerial Branch. As such there is no provision under statute for giving promotions to the post of P. A. to the Executive Officer from the cadre of superintendent. It was admitted in the counter that the cadre strength of devasthanam was approved by the commissioner in the year 1995 earmarking three posts of Superintendents for filling up with Departmental persons. The commissioner in partial modification of the said orders earmarked one post of P. A. also for filling up with the rank of Assistant commissioner. As such, the post of P. A. was filled up with Departmental Assistant commissioner, therefore there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed. ( 7 ) THE question that falls for consideration is whether the Commissioner of Endowments is entitled to transfer the departmental Officer and post him as P. A. to the Executive Officer. ( 8 ) UNDER Section 39 of the Act, the commissioner has power to transfer any office holder or servants attached to a charitable or Religious Institution or endowment from that Institution or endowment to any other Institution or endowment in accordance with such Rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf. By virtue of exercising powers under Section 39 of the Act, the commissioner can transfer in-service candidate attached to the Charitable or religious Institution, but however the issue that calls for consideration is whether the departmental candidate can be transferred and posted as P. A. to Executive Officer. ( 9 ) ADMITTEDLY the 3rd respondent was working as Superintendent in the endowment Department and he was posted as the Executive Officer and subsequently he retired from service. Now 4th respondent who was working as superintendent in the Department was promoted as Assistant Commissioner and posted as the Executive Officer and such a course of action is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Now 4th respondent who was working as superintendent in the Department was promoted as Assistant Commissioner and posted as the Executive Officer and such a course of action is contrary to the provisions of the Act. As can be seen from Section 39 of the Act, only the Commissioner has power to transfer any office holder or servants attached to a Charitable or Religious institution or Endowment to any other institution or Endowment, but there is no provision for transferring the departmental candidates from the Government department to the Charitable Institution except the Executive Officer whose appointment is governed by Section 29 of the Act. Therefore, except appointment of the Executive Officer, no power is vested with the Commissioner to transfer the government departmental officers to any other post in the Charitable or Religious institution. Admittedly in the instant case, the 4th respondent was posted as P. A. to the Executive Officer, who is none else than a departmental officer and the said proceedings are contrary to Section 39 of the act. Further it was stated in the counter that no post of P. A. was contemplated under the rules and therefore it is open for the commissioner to post the P. As. to the executive Officer. Even such a contention also cannot be accepted for the reason that there is a blanket prohibition under section 39 of the Act. Even under the rules which were framed under the repealed Act, when the cadre strength was fixed by the commissioner, the posts have to be filled from among the servants of the subject temple or other temples, but there is no power to earmark the post of P. A. to the departmental candidates. Under Section 155 of Act 30/87, even the pre-existing rules cannot be allowed to operate in contravention of Section 39 of the Act. Every servant of the Temple has to be transferred in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Act. It is clear from the counter that the 4th respondent who was appointed as P. A. , was brought from the Government Department and such power is not vested with the Commissioner. Hence, I am of the clear view that the impugned proceedings are in violation of section 39 of the Act. ( 10 ) IN the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Hence, I am of the clear view that the impugned proceedings are in violation of section 39 of the Act. ( 10 ) IN the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Commissioner shall take appropriate proceedings under Section 39 of the Act and consider the case of the eligible candidates including the petitioner for appointment as P. A. to Executive Officer in accordance with Rules and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.