Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 857 (AP)

K. Gangadhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-09-09

NINALA JAYASURYA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is about the competency of the 2nd respondent-Commissioner in issuing proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 for absorbing the petitioner herein as Editor of "Sri Kanaka Durga Prabha', a religious monthly magazine (hereinafter referred to as magazine) published by the 3rd respondent-Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, in a newly sanctioned post and non-implementation of the same by the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam. 2. The facts of the petitioner's case as per the pleadings may briefly be stated thus: The petitioner is a Post Graduate in Telugu from Acharya Nagarjuna University. He secured a Master Degree in Communication in Journalism from Potti Sriramulu Telugu University and did M.A., (Sanskrit) from the same University. He was awarded Doctorate (Ph.D.,) in Social Work by Acharya Nagarjuna University. He obtained P.G.D.C.A., in Human Resource Management from Andhra Pradesh Productivity Council. He had also passed the required Account Test for Sub-ordinate Officers Part-I (08), Account Test for Executive Officer (141), Endowment Department Test (103, 126) conducted by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as regular incharge of "Sri Kanaka Durga Prabha" in the year 2003, on consolidated pay. He worked as Assistant Public Relations Officer from 2004 to 2007. Later he worked as Sub-Editor of the said magazine from the year 2009 and in the year 2014 he was asked to discharge the duties of Editor vide Proceedings dtd. 14/2/2014 issued by the 3rd respondent. 4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.16269 of 2014 seeking a direction to the authorities for sanction of the post of Editor and the same was disposed of by an Order dtd. 1/8/2014. He also filed Writ Petition No.20584 of 2017 seeking Time Scale from the date of his appointment as Editor from the year 2014 and an interim direction was issued to consider his representation. However, Time Scale was not paid on the premise that there is no sanctioned post. The petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.581 of 2019 seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to sanction the post of Editor and the same was also disposed of by an Order dtd. 25/1/2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9165 of 2019 challenging the proceedings dtd. 11/7/2019 issued by the 3 rd respondent-Devasthanam when his services were sought to be dispensed w.e.f. 17/7/2019 onwards. 25/1/2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9165 of 2019 challenging the proceedings dtd. 11/7/2019 issued by the 3 rd respondent-Devasthanam when his services were sought to be dispensed w.e.f. 17/7/2019 onwards. In the said Writ Petition, an interim direction was issued to the 2nd respondent to take action on the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken back into service as an Editor pursuant to the proceedings dtd. 18/10/2019 issued by the 3 rd respondent-Devasthanam, on contract basis, subject to final orders in W.P.No.9165 of 2019. 5. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings in Memo dtd. 8/1/2021, inter alia, sanctioning one post of Editor in the cadre of Assistant Executive Officer and prescribed the qualifications for the said post as per G.O.Ms.No.1060 dtd. 24/10/1989. The 2nd respondent on the same day, by a separate Memo issued proceedings absorbing the petitioner in the newly sanctioned post of Editor and directed the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent to take further necessary action in the matter. However no action was taken by the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 6. Heard Mr.K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.P.Rajani Reddy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also heard Mr.K.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Contentions: 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the petitioner is qualified to the post of Editor, which is in the cadre of Assistant Executive Officer and functioned as the Editor of magazine, pursuant to the proceedings dtd. 14/2/2014 issued by the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam, as the magazine cannot be published without an Editor, as per the Press Council Regulations. Referring to the proceedings dtd. 14/2/2014, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was assured that on sanction of the post of Editor in future, by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner, first preference would be given to the petitioner, as the Devasthanam was availing his services as Editor. He submits that the petitioner discharged the functions of Editor of the magazine in question for about 7 years and prior to that he had rich experience as a Sub-Editor for five years. He submits that the 2nd respondent-Commissioner on due consideration of the proposals dtd. He submits that the petitioner discharged the functions of Editor of the magazine in question for about 7 years and prior to that he had rich experience as a Sub-Editor for five years. He submits that the 2nd respondent-Commissioner on due consideration of the proposals dtd. 16/10/2013 of the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam, sanctioned one post of Editor in the cadre of Assistant Executive Officer in the Time Scale, vide Proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021. He further submits that the 2nd respondent taking into consideration that the petitioner has been working in the magazine since its inception in different cadres and had completed 17 years in all and also taking into account the proceedings of the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam dtd. 14/2/2014 issued separate proceedings on 8/1/2021, absorbing the services of the petitioner in the newly sanctioned post of Editor, as a special case. He submits that the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent- Devasthanam instead of implementing the said proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021, addressed a communication dtd. 29/2/2021 to the 2nd respondent to review/re-examine the proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 and in response there to, the Commissioner/2nd respondent, by proceedings dtd. 9/3/2021 directed the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam to implement the proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021, subject to the result of W.P.No.9165 of 2019. He submits that the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam, being sub-ordinate Officer is bound to implement the same, but he had not taken action and it amounts to blatant in-subordination. 8. The learned counsel would also contend that neither proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 sanctioning the post of Editor of the magazine nor the proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 directing the absorption of the petitioner as Editor of the magazine have been challenged and in such circumstances, the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent is obligated to implement the orders/proceedings of his superior i.e., Commissioner of Endowments. The learned counsel would also submit that the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam, instead of implementing the same, however indirectly questioning it in the petitioner's Writ Petition, which is not tenable, more particularly in view of his earlier communication dtd. 14/2/2014 where, in categorical terms, specific assurance was given to the petitioner that he would be given first preference to the post of Editor. 14/2/2014 where, in categorical terms, specific assurance was given to the petitioner that he would be given first preference to the post of Editor. He would also submit that there is no dispute with regard to qualifications or competency of the petitioner to hold the post of Editor and that by virtue of Sec. 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short "the Act'), the Commissioner is having the power of overall superintendence and in view of the same as also in terms of Rule 35 of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Office Holders and Servants Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2000) issued vide G.O.Ms.No.888 dtd. 8/12/2000, the Commissioner/2nd respondent is empowered to issue proceedings of absorption and the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent is bound to implement them. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Writ Petition. 9. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 while reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent supported the case of the petitioner and inter alia, submitted that the 2nd respondent-Commissioner had issued proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 sanctioning the post of Editor in the cadre of Assistant Executive Officer in exercise of his powers under the Act and the relevant Rules by duly considering the proposals of the 3rd respondent for sanction of cadre strength of Editor as also other posts for smooth running of the magazine in question and issued separate proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 for absorption of the petitioner in the said post. It is also submitted that the petitioner is qualified to hold the post of Editor and by duly considering the length of his services in the publication of the magazine, the impugned proceedings were issued, as a special case, but the 3rd respondent had not acted upon the same, for the reasons not known. 10. Mr. K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, however had taken rather a firm stand that the 2nd respondent-Commissioner has no power or authority to issue an Order of absorption like in the present case, since the power of appointment of employees in the 3rd respondent is vested with the Executive Officer as per Sec. 35 of the Act. K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, however had taken rather a firm stand that the 2nd respondent-Commissioner has no power or authority to issue an Order of absorption like in the present case, since the power of appointment of employees in the 3rd respondent is vested with the Executive Officer as per Sec. 35 of the Act. He submits that the cadre strength has to be fixed, which has not been done and Rule 46 of Rules, 2000 deals with the procedure for direct recruitment. He further submits that the petitioner has been discharging his functions on contract basis and as the services are not against a sanctioned post, the proceedings issued for absorption of his services as an Editor are not legally tenable. He also submits that no selection procedure was followed and the proceedings of absorption are contrary to law and amounts to disregarding the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi,(2006) 4 SCC Page 1 He would further submit that even assuming, the post of Editor was sanctioned by the 2nd respondent on 8/1/2021 as such prior to that it cannot be treated as sanctioned and therefore any proceedings of appointment/absorption would not be sustainable in law. The learned counsel while contending that Sec. 8 of the Act would not empower the 2nd respondent-Commissioner to issue any such direction for absorption, further submits that Rule 35 is applicable to the employees whose services are covered by Service Rules, but not to all and as the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned post, the said Rules are not applicable to him. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that the contentions sought to be advanced with reference to Sec. 8 of the Act and Rule 35 of the Rules are also not tenable as the powers of the Commissioner under Sec. 8 are subject to the other provisions of the Act i.e., Sec. 35. The learned counsel in support of his various contentions with regard to power and authority of the Commissioner, binding nature of legal precedents on the Executive and Statutory authorities etc., placed reliance on the following decisions. The learned counsel in support of his various contentions with regard to power and authority of the Commissioner, binding nature of legal precedents on the Executive and Statutory authorities etc., placed reliance on the following decisions. 1) N.Ramana Kumari v. Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur and Others , 1998(2) ALT 439 ) Shri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple v. Commissioner, Endowment Depart, 2004(3) ALT 44 ) V.V.R.K.Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2017(3) ALD 689 (DB)) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Nagayach, (2013) 7 SCC 25 ) Union of India v. Concord Fortune Minerals India Private Limited,(2018) 12 SCCs 279) Executive Officer, Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala v. Metlapalli Seshalakshmi Srinivas, 1999(2) AndhWR 129 . 11. The learned counsel would also urge that no Writ can be issued to the authorities to act contrary to law and the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent though sub-ordinate to the 2nd respondent, cannot be compelled to act or take any action in contravention of law and in the above circumstances, the proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 were not implemented. Resting his submissions, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. 12. In reply to the submissions made on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent vide U.S.R.No.43492 of 2021 dtd. 26/8/2021, there is no plea/averment about violation of any Rules of recruitment or the case of Umadevi referred supra, on which much reliance was placed. The learned counsel would also submit that the earlier counter was withdrawn by filing I.A.No.2 of 2021, but arguments were advanced with reference to the pleas taken in the said counter and the same is not permissible. While submitting that the posts in Assistant Executive Officer cadre would be filled up by promotion from lower cadre and there is no direct recruitment in terms of Annexure-III of G.O.Ms.No.888 dtd. 8/12/2000, the learned counsel also submits that there is no violation of Rule 46 of G.O.Ms.No.888, as contended by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. He submits that even as per the said G.O., the Sub-Editor can be promoted to the post of Editor and the said procedure was followed by the 2nd respondent in the present case and therefore, there is no violation of procedure or violation of the law as settled in Umadevi's case. He submits that even as per the said G.O., the Sub-Editor can be promoted to the post of Editor and the said procedure was followed by the 2nd respondent in the present case and therefore, there is no violation of procedure or violation of the law as settled in Umadevi's case. While distinguishing the decisions on which reliance was placed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, learned counsel contends that the principle laid down in the Umadevi's case, is not a bar for absorption and in the case on hand, there is no regularization of services. He further submits that even otherwise, the Commissioner/ 2nd respondent had ample powers under the Rules and the Commissioner is empowered to issue proceedings in special cases like the present and the same are legally valid. Accordingly, the learned counsel submits that the Writ Petition may be allowed by granting relief sought for. 13. This Court has given a thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the respective counsel on both sides and gone through the material on record. On a careful examination of the matter, the following points emerge for consideration by this Court. 1. Whether the proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 creating the post of Editor is within the powers of the 2nd respondent- Commissioner? 2. Whether Rules, 2000 are applicable to the petitioner? 3. Whether the proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 absorbing the petitioner is within the power of the 2nd respondent- Commissioner and the same are liable to be implemented by the 3rd respondent? 4. Whether the proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 are contrary to the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case? 14. Before dealing with the contentions of the learned counsel for both sides, the relevant provisions of Law may be extracted for ready reference: Sec. 8. Powers and functions of Commissioner and Additional Commissioner: 1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the administration of all charitable and Hindu religious institutions and endowments shall be under the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were found or exist. 2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the Commissioner shall exercise the powers conferred on him and perform the functions entrusted to him by or under this Act in respect of such institutions or endowments in the State as are included in the lists published under clause (a), clause (d) and clause (e) of sec. 6. Sec. 35 of the Act deals with appointment of office holders and servants etc., [(1) Every vacancy in the approved cadre strength whether permanent or temporary, amongst the office holders or servants of a charitable or religious institution or endowment shall be filled by the Trustee with the prior permission of the competent authority. Provided that in the case of a charitable or religious institution or endowment whose annual income exceeds rupees ten lakhs the Executive Officer shall appoint the office holders and servants thereof with the prior permission of the competent authority. Provided further that in the case of appointment of religious office holders such appointment shall be made keeping in view the Agamas of the respective institutions and preference shall be given to those who are well versed with the Agama, custom and usage of the respective institution.] (2) .............................. (3)............................... [(4) Fixation of cadre strength, the qualifications, method of recruitment, pay and allowances, discipline and conduct and other conditions of service for the office holders and servants of the religious charitable institutions and endowments shall be such as may be prescribed.] 15. As per Rule 2 (d) of Rules, 2000 office holder or servant includes a person who holds an office to which a Inam is granted, confirmed or recognized by the Government or who is remunerated by the institution concerned and who is either a whole time or part time functionary. 16. Rule 35 of the Rules provides for relaxation of the said Rules by the Commissioner in the following terms: "The Commissioner may relax any rule of these rules in favour of any person or any class of persons for being appointed, otherwise than by direct recruitment, to any office or post or of any person who is serving or has served in any of the institutions in such manner as may appear to him just and equitable. Provided that where any such Rule is applicable to the case of any person or class or persons, it shall not be relaxed in any manner less favour to the person or class of persons than that provided by that Rule." 17. As per Rule 36, special provisions for certain temples in addition to the Rules, except Rules 5 and 16, shall be applicable to the office holders and servants of the eight institutions mentioned therein, including Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy varu/3rd respondent herein. 18. Further, Rule 37 which provides that the class and categories of the employees of the said eight institutions shall be as sanctioned by the Commissioner from time to time. Rule 38 (a) contemplates that the cadre strength in respect of each class and category of posts in each of the eight institutions shall be fixed by the Commissioner. 19. Rule 38(b) postulates that the Board of Trustees shall not make any variations in the cadre strength, except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. Rule 39 deals with qualifications and envisages that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the post specified in column (2) of Annexure-III appointed to the Rules by the method specified in column (3) thereof, unless he possess the qualifications specified in the corresponding entry in column(4) thereof. 20. Rule 46 deals with the procedure for direct recruitment, as per which, any vacancy to be filled up by direct recruitment shall be notified by the Executive Officer to the Employment Exchange having jurisdiction over the institution. Selection of candidates out of the list of candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange shall be made by the Committee to be constituted by the Commissioner from time to time and the said Committee shall conduct a written examination followed by oral tests. Percentage of marks allotted for oral test shall not exceed 12% of the total marks. 21. Point No.1: Sanctioning of posts for the class and categories of the employees of the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam is provided under Rule 37 of the Rules as noted above and the Commissioner is the sanctioning authority. Percentage of marks allotted for oral test shall not exceed 12% of the total marks. 21. Point No.1: Sanctioning of posts for the class and categories of the employees of the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam is provided under Rule 37 of the Rules as noted above and the Commissioner is the sanctioning authority. As per Rule 38(a) of the Rules, Commissioner is empowered to fix the cadre strength for the institution in question and in view of Rule 38(b) of the Rules, even the Board of Trustees has no power to make any variations to the same, except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. Thus, it is clear that the Commissioner is vested with the power to sanction posts for a class and category of employees and fix the cadre strength. Therefore, sanctioning of the post of Editor in the present case through the proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 is well in the competence and powers of the Commissioner and the point is accordingly answered. 22. Point No.2: The term Office Holders and Servants of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments is not defined under the Act, but the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000 defines "Office Holder" or "Servant". As per Rule 2(d) of the Rules, Office Holder or Servant includes a person who is remunerated by the Institution concerned and who is either a whole time or part time functionary. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is receiving remuneration for the post of Editor from the institution i.e., the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam. The magazine being published by the 3rd respondent is a monthly magazine and it can be construed that the petitioner is a whole time functionary. However, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contends that the above said Rules are not applicable to the petitioner on the premise that he is not appointed against a sanctioned post. In this regard he relies on V.V.R.K. Srinivas's case referred to supra, wherein a Hon'ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh was dealing with a case of Non-Muster Roll (NMR) employee/worker of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada (3rd respondent). In this regard he relies on V.V.R.K. Srinivas's case referred to supra, wherein a Hon'ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh was dealing with a case of Non-Muster Roll (NMR) employee/worker of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada (3rd respondent). The Hon'ble Division Bench with reference to Sec. 35 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and Rules, 2000 at Paras 13 and 14, inter alia, held as follows:- "13. In this regard, it is relevant to note that appointment of office holders and servants is governed by Sec. 35 of the Act of 1987, which states that every vacancy in the approved cadre strength whether permanent or temporary, amongst the office holders or servants of a charitable or a religious institution or endowment shall be filled by the Trustee with the prior permission of the competent authority. The question that would arise is whether the petitioners in these cases can be said to fall within the definition of 'office holders or servants' of the respondent temple in the light of Sec. 35 of the Act of 1987 which categorically states that the vacancy, permanent or temporary, should be in the 'approved cadre strength' of the office holders or servants, to which an appointment can be made by the Trustee. Unless a person is appointed to the cadre, be it in a temporary or a permanent vacancy, he cannot claim to be an office holder or servant. 14. Learned Counsel would also point out that under Rule 2(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 2000'), an 'office holder' or a 'servant' is defined to include a person who is either a whole time or a part-time functionary. 14. Learned Counsel would also point out that under Rule 2(d) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 2000'), an 'office holder' or a 'servant' is defined to include a person who is either a whole time or a part-time functionary. However, as there is no definition of 'office holder' or 'servant' of a charitable or a religious institution or endowment in the Act of 1987 but Sec. 35 thereof, which deals with appointment of office holders and servants of such institutions, puts it beyond doubt that such posts of office holders and servants must be borne on the approved cadre and appointment must be made thereto, be it in a permanent or temporary vacancy, this Court cannot accept that a non-muster roll employee can straight away be treated as a part-time employee falling within the definition under the Rules of 2000. In any event, the statute would prevail over the rule." In the light of the above decision, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Devasthanam that Rules of 2000 are not applicable to the petitioner, merits acceptance. Accordingly, the point is answered against the petitioner. 23. Point No.3: Coming to the contentions raised with regard to proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 directing the 3rd respondent to absorb the petitioner, it may be apt to refer to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner objected to some of the pleas raised by the learned counsel on the premise that the earlier counter was withdrawn, this Court cannot over look the legal position which has a bearing on the controversy. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner objected to some of the pleas raised by the learned counsel on the premise that the earlier counter was withdrawn, this Court cannot over look the legal position which has a bearing on the controversy. In N.Ramana Kumari and others' case, a learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the light of Sec. 35 of the Act, 1987, inter alia, held that the appointments in Sec. 6(b) temples shall only be made either by the Trust Board of the temple duly constituted or by the Executive Officer as the case may be and the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments shall have no authority to make any appointments, but he has the authority only to approve the appointments made by any of the above said two authorities and declared that the appointment of the petitioner therein as made by the then Deputy Commissioner, Endowments, Guntur is without authority. In Shri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple's case referred to supra another learned Judge with reference to the powers of Commissioner, Endowments, inter alia, observed as follows:- "The power under Sec. 8 of the Act is conditioned by a specific statutory instruct that sets out the limits of the superintendence of power conferred on the Commissioner. On a true and fair construction of the provisions of Sec. of the Act, the interference is irresistible that the proper administration of an institution or endowment contextually means appropriation of its income or utilization of its properties for the purposes for which that particular religious institution or endowment was founded or exists and for no other..." 24. A Hon'ble Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court in Executive Officer, Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, West Godavari District's case, had an occasion to deal with an order of appointment made by the Commissioner on compassionate grounds. A contention was raised before the Division Bench that the Commissioner has no authority to make such an appointment and the same was in any event contrary to the provisions of Sec. 35 of the Act, 1987. The Division Bench after referring to Sec. 35 of the Act, inter alia, observed that admittedly the concerned Devasthanam's income was exceeding ten lakhs and as such all appointments ought to be made by the Executive Officer and none else. The Division Bench after referring to Sec. 35 of the Act, inter alia, observed that admittedly the concerned Devasthanam's income was exceeding ten lakhs and as such all appointments ought to be made by the Executive Officer and none else. The Hon'ble Division Bench also observed that it is a statutory requirement and as such assumption of jurisdiction so far as the Commissioner is concerned, was wholly unwarranted and not in accordance with the Law. The Hon'ble Court held that the assumption of jurisdiction is void ab initio and as such the action in regard to the appointment, apart from the factual score is ipso facto invalid and bad in Law. However, in the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Division Bench after taking into consideration that the Order of the Commissioner was given effect to by the Executive Officer of Devasthanam, was not inclined to interfere with the Order of the learned Single Judge and disposed off the appeal with certain observations. 25. Thus, the legal position with regard to appointments in a Devasthanam like the 3rd respondent is well settled and the contention advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent that the Commissioner had no power to issue Proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 absorbing the petitioner in the 3rd respondent-Devasthanam deserves to be upheld. 26. Further, though Rules of 2000, more particularly, Rule 35 empowers the Commissioner to relax any of the Rules in favour of any person for appointment other than by direct recruitment, in the teeth of Sec. 35 of the Act, which specifically provides that the Executive Officer shall appoint the office holders and servants in the case of a charitable or religious institution or endowment, whose annual income exceeds ten lakhs, this Court has no option, except to hold that the Commissioner has no power or authority to issue the Proceedings dtd. 8/1/2021 absorbing the petitioner. 27. Further, it is settled Law that the statute overrides the rules and it may also be noted that the powers of the Commissioner under Sec. 8 of the Act are subject to the other provisions of the Act, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Devasthanam. In the light of the above said conclusions, no direction or reliefs as sought for by the petitioner can be granted. 28. In the light of the above said conclusions, no direction or reliefs as sought for by the petitioner can be granted. 28. In Union of India and others vs. Concord Fortune Minerals India Private Limited's case, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Devasthanam, the legal position is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that ordinarily writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to Law. In the present case, as the proceedings of absorption by the Commissioner is contrary to the provisions of the Act, the action of the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent in not giving effect to the same cannot be treated as disobeying the orders of the superior and would not amount to in-subordination. In such view of the matter, the point is answered accordingly against the petitioner. 29. Point No.4: Though the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that the Order of absorption is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case referred to supra, in view of the findings recorded with reference to Points 1 to 3 supra, this Court deems it not necessary to further delve in the matter and leave it open to the parties to raise their respective contentions, in any occasion arises. For the aforegoing reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending shall stand closed.