ORDER: This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not regularizing/absorbing the service of the petitioner in the existing vacancy in the post of purohit in the 3rd respondent Devasthanam inspite of the recommendations made by the Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent Devasthanam on 23.11.2011, 08.07.2015 11.12.2016, 14.05.2018, 05.11.2018, 16.08.2019 as illegal and contrary to law and direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to regularize/absorb the service of the petitioner in the existing vacancy in the post of purohit in the 3rd respondent Devasthanm. 2. The petitioner studied Krishna Yajurveda from Sri Venkateswara Veda Patashala, Dharmagiri, Tirumala, which is part of Vedayayam, Divya Prabhand Archakatva, Purohitya. He also passed Pravesa Exam with serial No.330029 conducted by the Endowments Department. He is fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Archaka/Purohits and Veda Paranayadars at any temple in the State. Accordingly the petitioner has appointed as Purohit in the 3rd respondent institution and the same was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent vide resolution dated 29.03.2007. The petitioner was appointed as Purohit on contract basis initially for a payment of Rs.3,000/- as remuneration. Subsequently, remuneration was increased to Rs.6,000/- with effect from 14.11.2010. 3. Based on the submissions, the 3rd respondent submitted a report to the 2nd respondent on 08.07.2015, recommending to the Commissioner Endowments to regularize the service of the petitioner in the existing vacancy. Request was not considered by the respondents. Once again they have made a request on 11.12.2016 after retirement of Sri Y.S.Chandra Sekhar Shastri, Purohit who was working on regular basis. After his retirement on 31.08.2010, there is a need of regular purohits and it was also brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that there are no regular Purohits since more than 13 years. The said request was rejected by the respondents only on the ground of imposing ban. After his retirement on 31.08.2010, there is a need of regular purohits and it was also brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that there are no regular Purohits since more than 13 years. The said request was rejected by the respondents only on the ground of imposing ban. Finally, based on the request made by the petitioner on 26.10.2018, the 3rd respondent has recommended the case of the petitioner for regularization vide proceedings dated 05.11.2018 stating that the petitioner is only Purohit working on contractual basis and performing all the duties of a regular purohit such as performing Abhishekhams for Srivaru and Ammavaru for three times a day, performing Mahanyasa Rudrabhishekham four times a day, Nitya Kalyanostavams, Suprabhatha Seva, Mahasivaratri Brahmostavams, Yagasala Poojas and other rituals at 19 associated temples and requested to pass appropriate orders regularizing the service of the petitioner and reminder was made on 16.08.2019. It is also mentioned that the Government has issued Memo dated 22.01.2021 for implementation of extension of the pay scales to Purohits in Archaka Scale. The Commissioner Endowments forwarded the said Government Memo and asked the 3rd respondent to submit a report for extension of the same. Accordingly, the petitioner’s pay scale was extended. 4. As the petitioner is working as Purohith in the 3rd respondent institution and he has completed more than twenty years, as per Section 35(3) of Endowments Act, the petitioner is the only eligible and qualified to be appointed as Purohit by regularizing the service, as per the recommendations made by the 3rd respondent since 2011 finally on 16.08.2019. 5. After notice, the 2nd respondent filed counter. According to the counter, the petitioner appointed as Purhoit on contract basis with a consolidated pay of Rs.3,000/- per month on 19.04.2007 in the 3rd respondent Devasthanam. The consolidated pay of the petitioner has been enhancing from time to time and accordingly, the petitioner is drawing consolidated pay of Rs.22,070/- per month. Based on the request made by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent submitted report to the 2nd respondent. After examining of the record, the 2nd respondent has issued proceedings on 17.12.2018 stating that there is no possibility for regularization of service of the employees who are working under contract basis. The petitioner has not challenged the said orders, but again submitted another representation on 08.07.2019 with a request for regularizing his service. After examining of the record, the 2nd respondent has issued proceedings on 17.12.2018 stating that there is no possibility for regularization of service of the employees who are working under contract basis. The petitioner has not challenged the said orders, but again submitted another representation on 08.07.2019 with a request for regularizing his service. The 3rd respondent again submitted report on 16.08.2019 and the 2nd respondent has returned the said request on 19.11.2019, directing to take necessary action as per circular memo dated 24.09.2018. In fact, the Commissioner Endowments has issued general circular vide memo dated 24.09.2018 to all the Execution authorities of the Charitable and Religious institutions not to send proposals for regularization of the service with regard to the Endowments Institutions. As the said circular is in existence, the 3rd respondent ought not to have sent the proposal for regularization of the service of the petitioner. Hence, the same were returned. 6. There is a ban on regularization of services of employees in Hindu Religious and Endowments Institutions imposed vide G.O.Rt.No.1997, Revenue (Endts.I) Department, dated 18.10.2005 until further orders by taking into consideration of large scale irregular appointment by the concerned Executive Officer, even in the absence of cadre strength. The case of the petitioner cannot be considered for regularization, accordingly the same was returned to the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 30.07.2022. 7. Based on the above pleadings, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible as per rules and accordingly, his services were taken by the 3rd respondent in the year 2004 and the same were acknowledged by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 29.03.2007 by permitting the 3rd respondent to continue the petitioner’s services. Further it is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent made a request to the 2nd respondent based on the circumstances existing all the permanent purohits were retired and the petitioner alone is performing Abhishekhams for Srivaru and Ammavaru for three times a day, performing Mahanyasa Rudrabhishekham four times a day, Nitya Kalyanostavams, Suprabhatha Seva, Mahasivaratri Brahmostavams, Yagasala Poojas, etc., and when there are regular sanctioned posts are available and as the petitioner is performing all the pujas regularly since, twenty years he is qualified for the said post. Rejection of the proposals by the 2nd respondent is only on the ground of having the memo issued by the Commissioner vide proceedings dated 24.09.2018 which is baseless and contrary to Rules. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in fact a Committee was constituted with regard to the service issues of the temple employees headed by Sri Justice A.Venkatrami Reddy, Chairman, Sri M.V.S.Prasad, I.A.S., retired, Sri Prof m.V.Soundararajan, Hereditary Trustee, Chilkur and Sri A.Chengappa, I.A.S., retired. Subsequently, committee members were modified with Justice P.Jagannadham Naidu, District Judge retired, Sri M.V.S.Prasad, I.A.S., retired and Sri Prof M.V.Soundararajan. The said committee has considered and made some recommendations, one of the recommendation with regard to regularization of the service of the employees working in the cadre of NMR, consolidated, contract basis, daily wages and outsourcing etc, in all the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Department which reads as follows: “A sizeable number of employees are recruited not only because of the needs of temples, but also because of pressures brought in by somebody or the other. Even while making such appointments, there is no rational or uniformity in fixing the pay for such employees. In fact, no action seems to have been taken against the defaulting executives, though ban on recruitment has been in vogue since 1993. Existence of such large number of employees inspite of ban proves lack of discipline. Taking into consideration the present state it is recommended that all those employees who have been in employment for ten years and above can be regularized and they should be accommodated in regular posts which are kept vacant. For this purpose, they should be considered not only for being posted in the temples where they are presently working in if there are regular posts but also other temples if there are no vacancies in the parent temple. Because of the financial burden caused by such regularization, we recommend that they be accommodated in the basic scale of the job into which they are recruited. In respect of those who are employed for less than ten years, we recommend that they should be phased out from the employment and should be given priority in future employment, if needed.” 9. In respect of those who are employed for less than ten years, we recommend that they should be phased out from the employment and should be given priority in future employment, if needed.” 9. When the said recommendations were made by the Committee constituted by the Government, the 2nd respondent has no basis for rejection of the proposals for regularization of the services in the Endowment Departments which is contrary to the recommendations made by the Committee and also the Rules. 10. Further the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that in identical situations this Hon’ble Court has considered and decided the Writ Petition No.15219 of 2020, which is filed for following relief: “Undoubtedly, the petitioner was appointed as NMR in the establishment of third respondent temple on 12.03.2000, completed more than 20 years of service and qualified for regularization in the vacant posts in the cadre strength of the third respondent temple. As per G.O.Ms.No.60 Finance (PC and TA) Department dated 06.07.2019, interim relief of 27% on the basic pay was extended to this petitioner along with other NMRs @ Rs.3,510/- with effect from 01.07.2019. Thereafter, interim relief was stopped from the month of September, 2019 after change in the office of the Executive Officer and the same is challenged in W.P.No.11483 of 2020, pending disposal. Thereupon, the third respondent issued proceedings in R.C.No.A1/1655/2015 dated 03.10.2019 and revised the pay scales as per the qualifications, eligibility and minimum pay scale attached to the post of Record Assistant and Junior Assistant were extended to all the NMRs. Once the scales are allotted and allowed to draw salary on par with regular employees, the petitioner and others are eligible to be continued in the regular cadre strength posts as against the posts which they are working and which are vacant as on today as per the approved cadre strength of the temple. Hence, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of this petitioner with all consequential service and monetary benefits.” 11. Based on the above prayer, the Court has considered the Rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Hence, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of this petitioner with all consequential service and monetary benefits.” 11. Based on the above prayer, the Court has considered the Rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. M.L.Kesari, SLP (C) No.15774 of 2006 dated 03.08.2010, and held that: “The law laid down by the authorities is not in quarrel, but in the present case, the services of this petitioner were engaged long prior to the judgment and continuously discharging their duties in the same capacity for the last more than 20 years, consequently as one time regularization scheme, as held by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (referred supra) be undertaken by the department to regularize the services of this petitioner on par with the services of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to avoid invidious discrimination in treating the persons placed on the same footing. Hence, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in various judgments, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to consider the case of this petitioner on par with Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as one time regularization scheme, as directed by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari (referred supra).” 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the facts in the above said case and in the instant case are one and the same. The petitioner was appointed in the year 2004 and service was permitted by the 2nd respondent in the year 2007 and since then the petitioner is continuously performing all the pujas, finally as per the proceedings of the Government by extending the pay scale to the petitioner. Further submitted that as per the orders of the Court, the respondent have issued various proceedings regularizing the service in identical cases and accordingly, he has made reliance of the said proceedings dated 02.02.2022 and 21.06.2022. In the said proceedings the Government has considered and regularized the service of the Purohits in Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeladri and he further submitted that in some of the cases regularizing orders were also passed with regard to the 3rd respondent institutions. 13. In the said proceedings the Government has considered and regularized the service of the Purohits in Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Indrakeladri and he further submitted that in some of the cases regularizing orders were also passed with regard to the 3rd respondent institutions. 13. Reply to the said submission, learned Government Pleader submitted that as there is a specific ban imposed by way of circular dated 24.09.2018 by the 2nd respondent directing the institutions not to send any proposals for regularization of the employees. Despite the said circular, the 3rd respondent sent proposals. Hence, the 2nd respondent returned the same stating that it is contrary to the circular memo dated 24.09.2018. In view of the ban memo, he requested for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent has submitted that as per the provisions of the Act, the 2nd respondent alone is competent to regularize the service of petitioner, hence, the 3rd respondent recommended the case of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent for regularization. 15. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, as the facts are not in dispute, the contention of the 2nd respondent is only on the ground that when there is a circular dated 24.09.2018 imposing ban, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. 16. In identical issue, this Court in Writ Petition No.15219 of 2020 by following the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. M.L.Kesari, directed the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner therein taking alone the service i.e., more than twenty years. In instant case, as the petitioner was appointed in the year 2004 and worked for nearly twenty years, the respondents are directed to consider the request made by the 3rd respondent and regularize the service of the petitioner on part with others those who are made in Government Memo No.NDW/502/2019/Endt.I(2), dated 02.02.2022 and proceedings of the Commissioner Endowments dated 21.06.2022 and pass appropriate orders expeditiously within a period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no Order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.