Judgment :- Undaunted by yet another rejection, the fourth no less, the petitioner is again before this Court seeking compassionate appointment as a Junior Assistant in Sri Bramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Srisailam, the 2nd respondent. He challenges the proceedings dated 19.12.2011 of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh (for short, ‘the Commissioner’) rejecting his claim and seeks a consequential declaration that he is eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment under G.O.Ms.No.1357, Revenue (Endowments. I) Department, dated 18.7.2011. The petitioner’s father rendered service in the 2nd respondent temple for nearly 30 years. He died in harness on 9.6.2009. He is survived by his widow, four sons and a daughter. The petitioner is his third son. The first and second sons are said to have separated from the family during the father’s lifetime and are presently working as contract carpenters in the service of the 2nd respondent temple. They were so employed even during the father’s lifetime. The daughter is married and lives separately with her husband. The petitioner claims that at the time of the father’s death only he, his mother and his younger brother were dependent on him. The petitioner belongs to BC-B community. Acting upon the request made by the petitioner’s mother to provide him appointment on compassionate grounds, the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent temple recommended his case for compassionate appointment as a Junior Assistant in an existing vacancy, under letter dated 13.9.2009 addressed to the Commissioner. The Commissioner however rejected the proposal on the ground that two other sons of the deceased employee were already working in the temple. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner and his mother filed W.P.No.14422 of 2010 before this Court. By interim order dated 23.6.2010, this Court directed the Commissioner and the 2nd respondent temple to consider appointment of the petitioner as a Junior Assistant in the second respondent temple on compassionate grounds, if he was otherwise eligible, as per law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner’s case was again rejected by the Additional Commissioner and Executive Officer (FAC) of the 2nd respondent temple, under proceedings dated 24.7.2010, on the ground that the Commissioner had issued orders in proceedings dated 6.4.2010 that no compassionate appointments should be made in temples as temples were not Government Departments and the GOs issued for compassionate appointment were not valid for temples. Challenging the said rejection, the petitioner moved WPMP No. 29525 of 2010 in the pending writ petition, W.P. No. 14422 of 2010, once again reiterating his claim for appointment as a Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds. The petitioner also relied upon various instances of compassionate appointments made in the 2nd respondent temple between the years 2003 and 2009, with the approval of the Commissioner. A detailed order was passed in the said WPMP on 23.2.2011 whereby this Court, taking note of the fact that the Commissioner himself had directed a compassionate appointment in the 2nd respondent temple under proceedings dated 4.7.2009, observed that the same could not have been done if, as a policy, the scheme of compassionate appointments was not adopted by the Endowments Department. It was further observed that if the scheme had been adopted in the past, there should be a reasoned or informed decision taken by the Commissioner for departing therefrom. As no such valid measure was reflected in the counter filed, this Court held that the balance of convenience would lie in favour of the petitioner and accordingly ordered the WPMP, directing the Commissioner and the 2nd respondent temple to examine the case of the petitioner for offering him compassionate appointment, keeping in mind the fact that there were 7 Junior Assistant posts vacant in the 2nd respondent temple. An appropriate decision was directed to be taken, without regard being had to the announcement of non-applicability of the scheme of compassionate appointments made by the Commissioner in the proceedings dated 16.4.2010. Until a decision was taken, one post of Junior Assistant in the 2nd respondent temple was directed not be filled up. However, the Commissioner again rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under his proceedings dated 21.2.2011. A copy thereof was communicated by the 2nd respondent temple to the petitioner under proceedings dated 22.2.2011. He filed C.C.No.426 of 2011 before this Court alleging violation of the interim order dated 23.2.2011 in WPMP No. 29525 of 2010 in W.P.No.14422 of 2010. While matters stood thus, the Government of Andhra Pradesh promulgated G.O.Ms.No.1357, Revenue (Endowments. A copy thereof was communicated by the 2nd respondent temple to the petitioner under proceedings dated 22.2.2011. He filed C.C.No.426 of 2011 before this Court alleging violation of the interim order dated 23.2.2011 in WPMP No. 29525 of 2010 in W.P.No.14422 of 2010. While matters stood thus, the Government of Andhra Pradesh promulgated G.O.Ms.No.1357, Revenue (Endowments. I) Department, dated 18.7.2011, accepting the recommendations of the PRC Committee, 2010 and extending the scheme of compassionate appointments which was available in the Government to all the employees of temples i.e., the administrative staff, including religious staff, duly treating the temple or endowment institution as a unit for that purpose. A copy of the said GO was placed before this Court in W.P.No.14422 of 2010 and the writ petition itself was disposed of in the light thereof, by order dated 26.9.2011. This Court observed that in view of the decision embodied in G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011, the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondents to take an appropriate decision with regard to consideration of the petitioner’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the said GO, within a time-frame. The contempt case in C.C.No.426 of 2011, filed by the petitioner alleging disobedience to the interim order dated 23.2.2011, was also disposed of on the same day by way of a separate order. Therein, this Court observed that as the writ petition had been disposed of granting three months time to act on the basis of G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011, it hoped and trusted that the respondent would take an appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner. This hope and trust however proved to be misplaced as the Commissioner again rejected the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment under his proceedings dated 19.12.2011. The reason for rejection this time was that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued a clarification in its Memo dated 15.11.2011 to the effect that extension of the scheme of compassionate appointments under G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 be considered from 10.9.2010, subject to the condition that the appointments would be from the date of issue of appointment orders only. The proceedings dated 19.12.2011 were communicated to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent temple under its proceedings dated 31.12.2011. Aggrieved by these proceedings, the indomitable petitioner is once again before this Court. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 be considered from 10.9.2010, subject to the condition that the appointments would be from the date of issue of appointment orders only. The proceedings dated 19.12.2011 were communicated to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent temple under its proceedings dated 31.12.2011. Aggrieved by these proceedings, the indomitable petitioner is once again before this Court. He reiterated his claim that his mother, his younger brother and he were the only dependents of his deceased father and averred that they were still facing a financial crunch owing to the loss of the bread winner. He pointed out that vacant posts of Junior Assistant were available in the second respondent temple but his case was being rejected time and again by the authorities concerned on one flimsy ground or the other. He sought a declaration that the action of the Commissioner, in rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment under his proceedings dated 19.12.2011, was illegal and contrary to the objective of G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 and the Memo dated 15.11.2011. He also sought a consequential declaration that he was eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment in the 2nd respondent temple under the said GO and Memo. The Joint Commissioner and Vigilance Officer, Endowments Department, filed a counter on behalf of the Commissioner, wherein she repeated that two of the petitioner’s brothers were employed in the 2nd respondent temple on contract basis and that the petitioner was ineligible for compassionate appointment as there were earning members in the family. While admitting that the Commissioner had directed compassionate appointments in various temples/endowments between the years 2003 and 2009, she stated that the said orders were passed under a mistaken understanding of the relevant Government Orders. She elaborated that those appointments were made under the impression that the scheme of compassionate appointments applied to employees of charitable and religious institutions/endowments. She however asserted that the petitioner could not seek relief on this ground as there could be no direction from this Court to perpetuate an illegality. She adverted to the extension of the scheme of compassionate appointments to temple employees under G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 and asserted that under the clarification issued by the Government, in its Memo dated 15.11.2011, such compassionate appointments could only be considered from 10.9.2010. As the father of the petitioner died on 9.6.2009, she contended that G.O. Ms. She adverted to the extension of the scheme of compassionate appointments to temple employees under G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 and asserted that under the clarification issued by the Government, in its Memo dated 15.11.2011, such compassionate appointments could only be considered from 10.9.2010. As the father of the petitioner died on 9.6.2009, she contended that G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 would not apply to him in the light of the clarification in the Memo dated 15.11.2011. She therefore supported the impugned proceedings dated 19.12.2011 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. In a separate counter, the 2nd respondent temple, speaking through its Executive Officer-cum-Special Grade Deputy Collector, stated to the same effect. The 2nd respondent temple pointed out that two of the petitioner’s brothers were engaged in its service on contract basis and contended that it was not true to say that there was no earning member in the family, as was certified by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. Reference was made to the clarification issued by the Government under its Memo dated 15.11.2011 that the benefits under G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 should be considered only from 10.9.2010, in support of the plea that there was no merit in the writ petition. The 2nd respondent temple also prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on these grounds. In his reply, the petitioner contested the stand of the respondents that compassionate appointments under G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 would be considered only from 10.9.2010. He stated that the authorities were resorting to selective discrimination, by appointing persons of their choice on compassionate grounds irrespective of the said date. He filed compassionate appointment orders issued by the Commissioner in support of this contention. He again reiterated that his two brothers, who were engaged in the 2nd respondent temple on a contract basis, were so employed even during his father’s life-time and that they were also living separately since then. He therefore asserted that they could not be called his dependents. He concluded by praying that his writ petition be allowed with costs. The long and chequered history of the case reflects the callous indifference of the Commissioner in implementing the orders of this Court in their true spirit. He therefore asserted that they could not be called his dependents. He concluded by praying that his writ petition be allowed with costs. The long and chequered history of the case reflects the callous indifference of the Commissioner in implementing the orders of this Court in their true spirit. The continued reiteration of the self-same grounds, which were pressed into service for rejecting the petitioner’s case earlier, in the counter filed in the present writ petition, is a clear indication of the unyielding and arrogant attitude adopted by him. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim by proceedings dated 6.4.2010, in the first instance, was on the ground that the petitioner’s two brothers were working in the 2nd respondent temple and he was therefore ineligible for compassionate appointment. The said rejection was the subject matter of W.P. No. 14422 of 2010. This writ petition was disposed of in view of the materialization of G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 in the mean while, whereby the scheme of compassionate appointments was extended to temple employees, with a direction that the petitioner’s case be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light thereof. In effect, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim under the order dated 6.4.2010 passed by the Commissioner stood nullified. It was therefore no longer open to the Commissioner to once again parrot the same ground in the counter as a valid justification for denying relief to the petitioner. Further, the scheme of compassionate appointment applicable to Government employees, which has now been extended to temple employees, speaks of one of the dependent family members of a deceased-employee, who died in harness, being provided compassionate appointment. A married/unmarried son who has already separated from the family of the deceased-employee can hardly be categorized as a dependent family member. It is the specific case of the petitioner that his two brothers separated from the family even during the life-time of the father and were working in the 2nd respondent temple as contract carpenters since then. Residence Certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Srisailam Mandal, support the stand of the petitioner in this regard as the two brothers are shown to be residents of a house different from that occupied by the petitioner along with his mother and younger brother. No material is placed on record by the Endowments Department or by the 2nd respondent temple to the contrary. No material is placed on record by the Endowments Department or by the 2nd respondent temple to the contrary. Ergo, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the petitioner’s two brothers would qualify as ‘dependent family members’ of the deceased father. The attempt in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner to support the rejection of the petitioner’s claim under the impugned proceedings dated 19.12.2011 by projecting this tested ground once again therefore cannot be accepted. In any event, the impugned proceedings dated 19.12.2011 have to withstand judicial scrutiny independently and the counter filed in support thereof cannot add or supplement new reasons to justify the same. In MOHINDER SINGH GILL v. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER (1978) 1 SCC 405 ), the Supreme Court stated thus: “8.The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [ AIR 1952 SC 16 ]: “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.” In the light of this settled legal position, the proceedings dated 19.12.2011 must stand or fall on the vigour of the contents thereof and no new ground can be pressed into service through the counter to strengthen the same. The various orders of compassionate appointment, placed on record by the petitioner, indicate that the Commissioner was quite generous in allowing such appointments earlier. The various orders of compassionate appointment, placed on record by the petitioner, indicate that the Commissioner was quite generous in allowing such appointments earlier. What is of particular significance is the fact that the Commissioner permitted the 2nd respondent temple also to resort to such compassionate appointments since the year 2006. Proceedings dated 6.3.2009, 31.5.2009, 4.7.2009, and 24.7.2009 are placed on record to show that the Commissioner permitted compassionate appointments to be made in the 2nd respondent temple. Pertinent to note, it was only shortly thereafter that the 2nd respondent temple submitted its proposal for appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds, under its letter dated 13.9.2009. Having permitted such appointments up to July 2009, there is no explanation forthcoming as to why the Commissioner decided to deviate from the earlier procedure. As pointed out by this Court in its order dated 23.2.2011 passed in WPMP No. 29525 of 2010 in W.P. No. 14422 of 2010, there should have been a reasoned or informed decision taken by the Commissioner for departing from the settled practice of allowing compassionate appointments. On the other hand, the stand taken by the Commissioner at different points of time, insofar as the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is concerned, reflects that there was no consistent or informed approach in the matter. The rejection of the petitioner’s case, in the first instance, was on the ground that two of his brothers were employed, while the second rejection was on the ground that compassionate appointments should not be made in temples and that the orders issued by the Government in that regard would not be valid for temples. The reason underlying the third rejection voiced by the Commissioner in his proceedings dated 21.2.2011 is beyond the reach of this Court as the said proceedings have not been placed on record. However, after the advent of G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011, extending the scheme of compassionate appointments available to Government employees to employees of temples and endowments, there was a specific direction by this Court in W.P. No. 14422 of 2010 to take an appropriate decision in the matter on the basis thereof. However, after the advent of G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011, extending the scheme of compassionate appointments available to Government employees to employees of temples and endowments, there was a specific direction by this Court in W.P. No. 14422 of 2010 to take an appropriate decision in the matter on the basis thereof. It is also relevant to note that the contempt case instituted against the Commissioner, in the light of the third rejection embodied in his proceedings dated 21.2.2011, was also disposed of on the same day by the learned Judge, voicing hope and trust that the respondents would take an appropriate decision in the matter. Despite the tolerance shown by this Court in the face of the persistent and intractable stance of the Commissioner in time and again searching for ways and means to reject the petitioner’s case, the Commissioner once again chose to be wilful and by way of the impugned proceedings, he now states that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 is prospective in nature, as has been clarified by the Government in its Memo dated 15.11.2011. In this regard, it may be noted that G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 does not place any such limitation on the extension of the scheme of compassionate appointments to temple employees. Whether such a rider can be attached to the GO by way of a Memo is itself a debatable issue. However as the said Memo is not under challenge in this writ petition, this Court does not deem it necessary to go into this aspect. However, the Memo dated 15.11.2011, upon which the present rejection rests, is ambiguous to say the least. It reads as follows: “The attention of the Commissioner of Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad is invited to the references cited and he is informed that Government, after careful examination, hereby clarify that the extension of the scheme of compassionate appointment be considered from 10.09.2010, subject to condition that the appointments will be from the date of issue of appointment orders only. The Commissioner of Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action in the matter accordingly.” The Commissioner’s understanding of this Memo is that compassionate appointments are to be allowed only in respect of those employees who died after 10.9.2010. The Commissioner of Endowments Department, A.P., Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action in the matter accordingly.” The Commissioner’s understanding of this Memo is that compassionate appointments are to be allowed only in respect of those employees who died after 10.9.2010. No such definite meaning or import flows from the actual language used in the Memo. It merely states that the scheme of compassionate appointments is to be considered from 10.9.2010 subject to the condition that the appointments will be from the date of issue of appointment orders only. This could very well mean that the scheme is to be extended to temple employees from the stipulated date and no retrospective appointment on compassionate grounds should be permitted merely because of such extension. This is made clear by the later part of the Memo which states that the appointment would be from the date of issue of the appointment order only. Unless the Memo specifically spells out that dependents of only those who died after 10.9.2010 would be eligible for compassionate appointment, the Commissioner cannot seek to interpret it to suit his purpose and restrict the benefit of the scheme of compassionate appointments now extended to temple employees. Further, the material placed on record reflects that though the Commissioner has taken this stand in the impugned proceedings and also his counter, his actions speak otherwise. The orders of appointment placed on record by the petitioner along with his reply affidavit indicate that the Commissioner directed compassionate appointments to be made even in respect of temple employees who died prior to 10.9.2010. By proceedings dated 30.10.2011, the Commissioner permitted the compassionate appointment of one P. Laxman in Sri Dugamalleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Vijayawada. The representation of P. Laxman for compassionate appointment was dated 10.3.2010 clearly indicating that his father, the deceased Archaka of the temple, died prior to 10.9.2010. Similarly, under proceedings dated 28.3.2012, the Commissioner permitted the compassionate appointment of one K. Balaji, s/o late K. Mallikarjuna Rao, in Sri Durgamalleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Vijayawada. Pertinent to note, this appointment was made after the issuance of the Memo dated 15.11.2011 and the proposal dated 16.12.2011 submitted by the said temple reflects that the temple employee, K. Mallikarjuna Rao, died on 26.1.2010. Yet another instance is that of K. Prudhvi Kumar, s/o late Sridharnath, who was appointed on compassionate grounds in the 2nd respondent temple. Pertinent to note, this appointment was made after the issuance of the Memo dated 15.11.2011 and the proposal dated 16.12.2011 submitted by the said temple reflects that the temple employee, K. Mallikarjuna Rao, died on 26.1.2010. Yet another instance is that of K. Prudhvi Kumar, s/o late Sridharnath, who was appointed on compassionate grounds in the 2nd respondent temple. The proceedings dated 7.4.2012 issued by the Commissioner in this regard reflect that the proposal submitted by the temple was dated 10.4.2010, indicating that the employee, K. Sridharnath, died before 10.9.2010. That was also a case where, in the first instance, the Commissioner rejected the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that two of the family members of the deceased-employee were in service. However, in compliance with the orders of this Court passed in that case, the Commissioner directed the compassionate appointment of K. Prudhvi Kumar in the 2nd respondent temple. Strangely, in spite of the various orders passed by this Court in the petitioner’s case, the Commissioner remains defiant and headstrong. There is no explanation forthcoming from the Commissioner as to how the appointments made by him under the proceedings dated 30.12.2011 and more particularly, the proceedings dated 28.3.2012, are justified if the scheme of compassionate appointments under G.O. Ms. No. 1357 dated 18.7.2011 is to be extended to only those temple employees who died after 10.9.2010. This pick and choose method adopted by the Commissioner, in permitting compassionate appointments in cases of his liking while pressing into service one feeble reason or the other to deny others identically situated, cannot be countenanced. Such action reeks of patent arbitrariness and is anathema to the rule of law. As succinctly put by Justice Frankfurter, an executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them (Vitarelli v Seaton, 359 US 535, 546-547). The lack of consistency shown by the Commissioner in applying his perceived understanding of the Memo dated 15.11.2011 therefore demands cancellation of the impugned proceedings. The lack of consistency shown by the Commissioner in applying his perceived understanding of the Memo dated 15.11.2011 therefore demands cancellation of the impugned proceedings. Further, the continued refusal by the Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner in the proper spirit, in spite of this Court time and again directing him to do so, leaves this Court with no option but to mould the relief in exercise of its plenary power and issue a positive direction in the present writ petition, though the petitioner only sought a declaration. By virtue of the order dated 23.2.2011 passed in WPMP No. 29525 of 2010 in W.P.No.14422 of 2010, one post of Junior Assistant in the 2nd respondent temple was directed not to be filled up. Thereafter, this Court by order dated 20.6.2012 in the present writ petition directed status-quo to be maintained with regard to one post of Junior Assistant in the 2nd respondent temple, if it was vacant. It has not been brought to this Court’s notice thereafter that such vacancy does not exist. The petitioner can therefore be appointed to the same. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned proceedings dated 19.12.2011 are set aside. There shall be a Mandamus to the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant in the 2nd respondent temple. Two months’ time is granted to the respondents to comply with this order. WPMP Nos. 5704 and 5705 of 2012 no longer survive for consideration in the light of this final order and are accordingly dismissed. Given the obdurate stance adopted by the Commissioner all through, forcing the petitioner to run from pillar to post and approach this Court time and again, this is a fit case to impose costs. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh shall accordingly pay costs, quantified at Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only), to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of this order.