JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Srinivasulu Kurra, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 and Mr. G. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by learned single Judge in W.P.No.12 of 2021 setting aside G.O.Rt.No.944 Revenue (Endowments. II) Department, dated 11.12.2020 issued by the 1st respondent in the writ petition, constituting the Board of Trustees for the 4th respondent temple in the writ petition, leaving it open to the respondent authorities to reconstitute the Board, in accordance with law. 3. The present appeal is preferred by respondent No.7 in the writ petition. Respondent Nos.6 to 13 in the writ petition were the members of the Trust Board constituted by G.O.Rt.No.994, dated 11.12.2020. In the order under challenge, it was recorded that the private respondents were represented by Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy. However, Mr. Nagendra Reddy submits that he had appeared only for respondent No.7, who was the Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Though a dispute is sought to be raised, it is relevant to note that the Chairman of the Board of Trustees had been heard and therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into that arena as to whether notice was issued to all the respondents, as in our considered opinion, the Chairman had put forward the case on behalf of the Board, thereby trying to protect the interest of all the members. 4. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the ground that Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 (for short, ‘the Rules’) , was not followed as no notice inviting applications for the post of trustees in the news paper was issued. 5. 4. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition on the ground that Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 (for short, ‘the Rules’) , was not followed as no notice inviting applications for the post of trustees in the news paper was issued. 5. At the outset, it is relevant to extract Rule 4 of the Rules, which reads as under: “Rule-4: (1) The authority competent to appoint trustees shall, forth with on a report received under Rule 3, cause publication of the notice in Form-I. (2) The notice referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be affixed; (i) on the notice board of the office or on the front door of the institution or endowment or in any conspicuous place where there is no institution; (ii) on the notice board of the Sarpanch, Mandal Revenue Officer, Municipal Office, as the case may be; and (iii) on the notice board of the office of the Commissioner, Regional Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, and Inspector as the case may be; Provided that the competent authority may also order or cause publication of the notice in any daily news paper in the language of the locality at the cost of the Institution or endowment, if it is situated in big cities and is capable of meeting the cost of publication.” 6. It is the contention of Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, that the proviso to Rule 4 comes into play only in the event of fulfilment of two conditions, namely, if the temple is located in big city and the temple is capable of meeting the cost of publication and, that too, only when the competent authority gives an order for publication of the notice in any daily newspaper in the language of the locality. 7. While admitting that the temple in question was capable of meeting the cost of publication, it is submitted that the temple is not located in a big city. It is also submitted that in any event, a news item was published indicating that the temple in question was going to appoint Board of Trustees and applications were invited fixing the last date as 19th October, 2019 and, therefore, there is substantial compliance of the proviso. 8. It is also submitted that in any event, a news item was published indicating that the temple in question was going to appoint Board of Trustees and applications were invited fixing the last date as 19th October, 2019 and, therefore, there is substantial compliance of the proviso. 8. It is seen that the competent authority had issued an order dated 01.10.2019 requiring the Executive Officers of various temples, amongst others, 4th of the respondent temple, to cause publication of the notice in any newspaper in the language of the locality for appointment of trustees and submit affixture reports to it without fail. When the competent authority had issued such an order, the same has to be followed by the subordinate officers. 9. In our considered opinion, a news item published in a newspaper does not fulfil the requirements of a notice asking the general public to submit their candidature for the posts of Trust Board members. 10. We do not find any good ground to take a view other than the one taken by the learned single Judge. 11. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with no costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.