ORDER : The 5th respondent-charity is being managed by Kamisetty family. The Kamisetty family had been recognized as the founder family of the 5th respondent. Initially, Sri Kamisetty Venkatesam Chetty was recognized as the founder trustee. Thereafter, his son, Kamisetty Venkata Subbaiah Chetty was recognized as the member of the founder family and trustee up to 08.05.1993 when he passed away. After his demise, his son, Sri Kamisetty Lakshmi Narasimhulu, had been recognized as the sole trustee and the founder family member from 05.05.1994 to 04.11.2000 and upon his demise, his brother, Sri Kamisetty Srinivasulu Chetty was declared as the member of the founder family and was appointed as a trustee. He continued till his demise on 19.09.2020. After his demise, disputes arose as to who has to be appointed as a member of the founder family and also appointed as a trustee and secretary of the 5th Respondent. 2. The petitioner herein, states that he is the son of Sri Kamisetty Venkata Subbaiah, who passed away in 1993. He states that his father had twelve children from his first wife Smt. Lakshmidevamma, who passed away on 04.11.1960. After her demise, the petitioner contends that, his father married his mother and subsequently he was born. The petitioner contends that to assert his right, he has filed O.S.No.40 of 2006 before the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa for partition and separate possession of the joint family property of his father. This suit has been dismissed on 29.08.2019. However, the petitioner contends that even though the suit was dismissed, the trial Court had given a finding that he was the son of Sri Kamisetty Venkata Subbaiah Chetty. He contends that after the demise of Sri Kamisetty Srinivasulu Chetty in 2020, he had also sought to be recognized as a member of the founder family to be appointed as a sole trustee. For this purpose, he is said to have filed O.A.No.402 of 2013 before the Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad for being recognized as a member of the founder family in respect of the 5th respondent-charity. After the demise of Sri Kamisetty Srinivasulu Chetty, he had also approached the Commissioner Endowments, 2nd respondent herein, for being appointed as a trustee of the 5th respondent-charity by way of an application, dated 23.09.2020, sent to the 3rd respondent. 3. After the demise of Sri Kamisetty Srinivasulu Chetty, he had also approached the Commissioner Endowments, 2nd respondent herein, for being appointed as a trustee of the 5th respondent-charity by way of an application, dated 23.09.2020, sent to the 3rd respondent. 3. The petitioner states that the application given by him to the 3rd respondent was also forwarded to the 2nd respondent. It appears that the 6th respondent, who is also a grandson of Sri Kamisetty Venkata Subbaiah Chetty, had filed an application to be recognized as the member of the founder family and for being appointed as a trustee of the 5th respondent-charity. 4. The 2nd respondent, after considering the rival claims made by the petitioner, had rejected the claim of the petitioner to be appointed as a trustee and recognize/appoint the 6th respondent as a member of the founder family and secretary to the 5th respondent-charity. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 6. The case of the petitioner is that since he is a member of the founder family, his application, for being recognized as a member of the founder family and for being appointed as a trustee of the 5th respondent-charity, ought to have been accepted by the 2nd respondent. He submits that in view of the judgments of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh in Sri Vallabharayeswara Swamy Temple rep. by its Managing Trustee Jalasutram Venkata Subbaiah vs. Bellamkonda Venkata Subrahmanya Sarma and another, 2014 (5) ALT 801 and Rachamalla Sridhar Murali Krishna vs. State of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Hyderabad and others, 2016 (2) ALT 623 the petitioner is entitled to be recognized as a member of the founder family by the 2nd respondent and consequently, ought to have been appointed as a trustee/secretary of the 5th respondent charity. 7. The 2nd and 6th respondents filed their counters. The 6th respondent took the plea that the petitioner was never recognized by any of the members of the founder family as being member of the family and his contention that he is entitled to be recognized as a member of the founder family cannot be accepted, as none of the members of the family are willing to accept him as a member of the family. The 6th respondent has also raised various other contentions, which may not be germane to the present controversy and are not being alluded to in this order. 8. The 2nd respondent has raised a contention, which is also contained in the impugned order, that the petitioner had already filed O.A.No.403 of 2013 before the Endowments Tribunal against the founder of the family and as such, he cannot be recognized, by the 2nd respondent, as a member of the founder family. The 2nd respondent also took the plea that litigation is pending against the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner had encroached into the property of the 5th respondent-charity and steps were being taken to recover the said property from the petitioner. The 2nd respondent submits that in view of these facts, the application of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for 2nd respondent and Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 10. The contention of the petitioner that he is a member of the founder family of the 5th respondent is disputed by the other members of the family. On account of this dispute, it appears, that the petitioner had already approached the Endowments Tribunal by way of O.A.No.402 of 2013 for being recognized as a member of the founder family. In the circumstance, the contention of the petitioner that he should be recognized as a member of the founder family, on account of the judgments in Sri Vallabharayeswara Swamy Temple rep. by its Managing Trustee Jalasutram Venkata Subbaiah’s case and Rachamalla Sridhar Murali Krishna’s case, by the 2nd respondent, cannot be accepted for the following reasons: 11. In Sri Vallabharayeswara Swamy Temple rep. by its Managing Trustee Jalasutram Venkata Subbaiah’s case, this Court had held that once a member of a family is recognized, as a hereditary trustee, under the earlier Endowment Act of 1966, any descendant of that family can ordinarily approach the appointing authority for being recognized as a member of the founder family and such members need not approach the Tribunal. However, there is an observation, in the same judgment, that where there is a dispute in relation to the status, the said dispute would have to go to the Endowments Tribunal and cannot be decided by the appointing authority. However, there is an observation, in the same judgment, that where there is a dispute in relation to the status, the said dispute would have to go to the Endowments Tribunal and cannot be decided by the appointing authority. In the present case, there is a dispute due to the status of the petitioner and it is the petitioner himself, who has approached the Endowments Tribunal by way of O.A.No.403 of 2013. In this circumstance, the stand taken by the 2nd respondent, that the petitioner's application for recognition cannot be considered in view of the pendency of O.A.No.403 of 2013, cannot be faulted. 12. The application of the petitioner, to the extent of being appointed as a trustee, was rejected on the ground that there is a proceeding pending against him for recovery of property, in his possession, that is said to belong to the 5th Respondent-charity. This finding is on the basis of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Rc.No.A1/5077/03, dated 01.12.2003, by the 4th respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that the refusal of the 2nd respondent to appoint the petitioner as a trustee of the 5th respondent-charity is unreasonable or arbitrary. Consequently, the decision taken by the 2nd respondent in refusing to accept the application of the petitioner for recognition as a founder family member or for appointment as a trustee cannot be interfered by this court. 13. The petitioner had also raised an objection that the recognition of the 6th respondent as a member of the founder family and consequent appointment as a trustee/secretary of the 5th respondent-charity is in violation of the provisions of the Act. 14. Sri P.Rajasekhar draws the attention of this Court to Section 18 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Endoemwnts Act, 1987') read with Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Appointment of Trustees Rules, 1987 (for short 'the Trstees Rules, 1987'), to contend that, only a person, who lives in the locality, should be appointed as trustee of a charitable organization. In the present case, the 6th respondent lives in Hyderabad and he is practicing as a dentist and in such circumstances, he cannot be appointed as a trustee. The learned counsel would also contend that the verification of antecedents of a person has to be done before he can be appointed as trustee. In the present case, the 6th respondent lives in Hyderabad and he is practicing as a dentist and in such circumstances, he cannot be appointed as a trustee. The learned counsel would also contend that the verification of antecedents of a person has to be done before he can be appointed as trustee. He submits that in the case of the 6th respondent no such enquiry or verification of antecedents had been carried out and as such the 6th respondent cannot be recognized as a member of the founder family or to be appointed as a trustee. 14. Section 18 of the Endowments Act, 1987 reads as under:- 18. Qualifications of Trusteeship. - A person shall be qualified for being appointed as or for being a trustee of charitable or religious institution or endowment,- (a) if he has faith in God; (b) if he possesses good conduct, and reputation and commands respect in the locality in which the institution is situated; (c) if he has contributed for construction, renovation or development of any institution or performance of any Utsavam or Ubhayam or any charitable cause; (d) if he has sufficient time and interest to attend to the affairs of the institution; and (e) if he possesses any other merit. 15. Rules 5 and 8 of the Trustees Rules, 1987 read as under:- “5. (1) The application for the appointment of the Trustee shall be submitted in Form-II. (2) If no applications are received for the appointment of trustees, the competent authority shall as certain the names of the persons qualified in terms of Section 18 and free from disqualifications in terms of Section 19 and obtain applications from them for being appointed as trustees. 6. xxxxxxxx 7. xxxxxxxx 8. While appointing trustees, the competent authority shall have due regard to the qualifications and disqualifications for trusteeship laid down under the provisions of the Act and also to consider other merits enumerated below in selecting the applicants. 6. xxxxxxxx 7. xxxxxxxx 8. While appointing trustees, the competent authority shall have due regard to the qualifications and disqualifications for trusteeship laid down under the provisions of the Act and also to consider other merits enumerated below in selecting the applicants. - (a) One must be, - (i) service minded, capable of devoting sufficient time to the affairs of the institution or endowment in a spirit of humility and selfless service without any thought of personal gain or aggrandisement; (ii) having interest and faith in the institution or endowment to which he applies for trusteeship; (iii) normally a resident of locality enjoying respect and esteem in that area; (b) The appointment of trustees, - (i) shall be made on rational basis, (ii) shall not be made with persons having interse-relationship, (iii) shall be from the person belonging to different walks of life; (c) The order of appointment shall be in Form-II and it shall be communicated to the persons appointed as trustees either by special messenger or by registered post with acknowledgement due and also a copy of the order shall be affixed on the notice board of the institution concerned.” 16. Section 18 stipulates that a person is qualified to be appointed as a trustee, if he possesses “good conduct and reputation and commands in the locality in which the institution is situated”. This provision only requires that the reputation of the prescribed trustee should be good in that locality. This provision cannot be taken to mean that the person has to be a resident of that locality. 17. Rule 8 (a) (iii) requires that the prospective trustee should normally be a resident of the locality in relation to the respect and esteem in that area. The fact that the word “normally” is used at the very beginning of the said rule would mean that local residence is not a mandatory requirement for a person to be appointed as a trustee of the charitable and religious institution under the Act. 18. Explanation (a) to Section 17(2) states that the procedure for calling for application for appointment of trustees, verification of antecedents and other matters shall be such as may be prescribed. Section 2(19) of the Endowments Act, 1987 “prescribed” to mean that prescribed by Rules made by the Government under the Act. 19. The relevant Rules for appointment of trustees are the Appointment of Trustee Rules 1987. Section 2(19) of the Endowments Act, 1987 “prescribed” to mean that prescribed by Rules made by the Government under the Act. 19. The relevant Rules for appointment of trustees are the Appointment of Trustee Rules 1987. Rule 6 states that the competent authority, before appointing trustees, shall cause verification of the antecedents in case of those applications received in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 4. 20. Two consequences flow from Rule 6 of the Rules. Firstly, this Rule is not applicable for recognition of a member of the founder family by the appointing authority. Secondly, non-conduct of a verification procedure unilaterally is not fatal to the process of the recognition of the 6th respondent as a member of the founder family. Secondly, the said provision requiring verification of antecedents, before appointing a person as a trustee, would apply only to the cases where applications are sought under the Rules and trustees are appointed to a nonhereditary board of trust. This Rule would not be applicable to the members of the founder family, who are being appointed as a sole trustee or as secretary of the 5th respondent-charity or in the case of the 6th respondent, who is being appointed as a secretary of the 5th respondent-charity. 21. The appointment of the 6th respondent cannot be set aside on the ground of any violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules. In these circumstances, there are no merits in the writ petition. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.