ORDER : Petitioners 54 in number filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing services on the petitioners as Electrical workers, Nurses, Computer Operators, Drivers, Attendars, Welders, Masion, Carpenters, Compounder, Paricharika, Bajanthris, Helpers in Water Supply, Stationary, Annadham, Prasadham Making and C.C.T.V. Operators in the 3rd respondent temple in spite of the petitioners representation dated 08.10.2020 as in accordance with Para No.53 “Uma Devi Case and other Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice under the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and offends Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize services of the petitioners as permanent employees with all benefits and allowances and to pass such other order or orders ….”. 2. Writ affidavit was deposed by petitioner No.1. In the affidavit it was contended inter alia that all the petitioners are working in different wings of respondent No.3 Temple as contract labour. As per particulars mentioned in the affidavit petitioner No.34 has been working as Driver since 1993 and petitioner No.35 has been working as Helper-Carpenter since 1999. All the petitioners have been working for more than ten to fifteen years and so on. Petitioners possess requisite qualification to work as contract labour. After satisfying education qualifications, respondent Nos.2 and 3 gave appointment to the petitioners. Petitioners filed W.P.Nos.5244, 5812 of 2018 and 6973 of 2018 seeking grant of time scale. Pursuant to the orders in the above writ petitions, petitioners were granted minimum time scale on par with permanent employees of last grade and services of some of the candidates were regularized. On a number of occasions, petitioners requested respondents to regularize their service. Since their representations did not evoke any favourable response, petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit, it was not disputed with regard to the fact that petitioners have been working in different wings of respondent No.3-Temple. On a number of occasions, petitioners requested respondents to regularize their service. Since their representations did not evoke any favourable response, petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit, it was not disputed with regard to the fact that petitioners have been working in different wings of respondent No.3-Temple. It was contended inter alia that as per Section 35 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), 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 prior permission of the competent authority and the competent authority is Commissioner, Endowments. Petitioners have been working in respondent No.3 Temple on contract basis. Petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts. Commissioner, Endowments did not accord permission to respondent No.3 to create the posts and hence, petitioners are not entitled for regularization of their services. 4. While things stood thus, Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1997 (Endowments-I) Department, dated 18.10.2005 and imposed ban on recruitment in the Institutions under the Act, 30 of 1987. By virtue of ban imposed by the Government in the matters of recruitment, services of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are being continued on contract basis. Remuneration is being paid as per 2015 pay scales i.e. minimum basic pay without allowances. Petitioners cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation when the appointment to the post could be made only by following proper procedure for selection. 5. In respect of two persons, who were extended time scale pay, they have been working as Computer Operators, which is equivalent cadre of Junior Assistant. Respondent No.3 Temple made request to respondent No.2 to create two posts of Computer Operators. Basing on the request made by respondent No.3, respondent No.2 issued proceedings vide D.Dis No.A2/48370/03, dated 16.10.2003 by which two posts of Computer Operators were created in the establishment of respondent No.3 Devasthanam and further permitted respondent No.3 to absorb said two persons on consolidated pay of Rs.5,000/- w.e.f. 16.10.2003. It is stated that there are no merits in the present writ petition as petitioners’ services are purely termed as contractual who were engaged on temporary basis in non-sanctioned posts in respondent No.3-Temple. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. It is stated that there are no merits in the present writ petition as petitioners’ services are purely termed as contractual who were engaged on temporary basis in non-sanctioned posts in respondent No.3-Temple. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel on either side. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that petitioners have been working in the Institution for more than three decades. He would also contend that since petitioners have been working for the last thirty years, respondents ought to have considered petitioners’ case for absorption in the light of para 53 in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Learned counsel while placing reliance upon Nihal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, 2013 (14) SCC 65 would further contend that respondents having been utilizing services of the petitioners for decades, are estopped from contending that there are no sanction posts to absorb the petitioners. He would also contend that Government has to take decision to create post to absorb petitioners. 8. Learned standing counsel would contend that there are no sanctioned posts. As per Section 35 of Act of 30 of 1987, the 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 prior permission of the competent authority. He would submit that competent authority in this case is Commissioner, Endowments and since there is no sanction by the Commissioner Endowments, services of the petitioners cannot be absorbed or regularized by respondent No.3-Temple. He would further submit that Government issued memo G.O.Ms.No.1997 (Endowments-I), dated 18.10.2005 prohibiting further recruitments in the Institutions which fall under the Act, 30 of 1987. Since the petitioners were engaged on contract basis and there are no sanctioned posts, question of regularization of petitioners’ services does not arise. He would place reliance upon Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 2023 Livelaw SC 91. 9. The undisputed fact in the case on hand is that petitioners 54 in number have been working in different wings of respondent No.3-Temple for the last more than two to three decades. The affidavit does not disclose qualification of each of the petitioners. 10. Para No.53 of Uma Devi’s case, which is relevant is extracted hereunder : “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. The affidavit does not disclose qualification of each of the petitioners. 10. Para No.53 of Uma Devi’s case, which is relevant is extracted hereunder : “53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [ (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071 ], R.N. Nanjundappa [ (1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799 ] and B.N. Nagarajan [ (1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937 ] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme. 11. A perusal of the above expression would indicate that appointment was made against duly sanctioned vacant post and employees have been continuing to work for ten years or more, their services need to be considered for regularization. The question of regularization of services of such persons may have to be considered on merits. 11. A perusal of the above expression would indicate that appointment was made against duly sanctioned vacant post and employees have been continuing to work for ten years or more, their services need to be considered for regularization. The question of regularization of services of such persons may have to be considered on merits. It was further observed that the State Government should take steps to regularize the services as one time measure of services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under the cover of orders of the Court or Tribunal. 12. In Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2018) 8 SCC 238 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : “9. The High Court as well as the State of Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue in a contextual perspective and not only from the point of view of the interest of the State, financial or otherwise — the interest of the employees is also required to be kept in mind. What has eventually been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short circuit the process of regular appointments and instead make appointments on an irregular basis. This is hardly good governance. 10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the service rendered by them. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.” 13. In Nihal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, 2013 (14) SCC 65, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed at para Nos.33 to 36. 33. It is no doubt that the assessment of the need to employ a certain number of people for discharging a particular responsibility of the State under the Constitution is always with the executive government of the day subject to the overall control of the legislature. That does not mean that an examination by a constitutional court regarding the accuracy of the assessment of the need is barred. 34. That does not mean that an examination by a constitutional court regarding the accuracy of the assessment of the need is barred. 34. This Court in S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 567 did examine the correctness of the assessment made by the executive government. It was a case where the Union of India appointed two Election Commissioners in addition to the Chief Election Commissioner just before the general elections to the Lok Sabha. Subsequent to the elections, the new Government abolished those posts. While examining the legality of such abolition, this Court had to deal with an argument whether the need to have additional Commissioners ceased subsequent to the election. It was the case of the Union of India that on the date posts were created there was a need to have additional Commissioners in view of certain factors such as the reduction of the lower age-limit of the voters, etc. This Court categorically held that: (SCC p. 585, para 27) “27. … The truth of the matter as is apparent from the record is that … there was no need for the said appointments….” 35. Therefore, it is clear that the existence of the need for creation of the posts is a relevant factor with reference to which the executive government is required to take rational decision based on relevant consideration. In our opinion, when the facts such as the ones obtaining in the instant case demonstrate that there is need for the creation of posts, the failure of the executive government to apply its mind and take a decision to create posts or stop extracting work from persons such as the appellants herein for decades together itself would be arbitrary action (inaction) on the part of the State. 36. The other factor which the State is required to keep in mind while creating or abolishing posts is the financial implications involved in such a decision. The creation of posts necessarily means additional financial burden on the exchequer of the State. Depending upon the priorities of the State, the allocation of the finances is no doubt exclusively within the domain of the legislature. However in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. However in the instant case creation of new posts would not create any additional financial burden to the State as the various banks at whose disposal the services of each of the appellants is made available have agreed to bear the burden. If absorbing the appellants into the services of the State and providing benefits on a par with the police officers of similar rank employed by the State results in further financial commitment it is always open for the State to demand the banks to meet such additional burden. Apparently no such demand has ever been made by the State. The result is—the various banks which avail the services of these appellants enjoy the supply of cheap labour over a period of decades. It is also pertinent to notice that these banks are public sector banks. 14. In Vibhuti Shankar Pandey’s case (referred supra), relied upon by learned standing counsel, is the case where the appellant was engaged in 1980 as Supervisor on daily rated basis under a project of the State Water Resources Department of Madhya Pradesh. The applicant did not possess minimum qualification. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that appointment was never made by the authority and there are no posts available at the time of regularization. While placing reliance upon Uma Devi’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there must be sanctioned post on which daily wage employee must be working and the appointment must be done by competent authority. Since these two conditions were missing, the Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed order of Division Bench, whereby order of learned Single Judge was set aside. 15. In the case on hand, as per the averments in the affidavit, no particulars were disclosed about the educational qualifications of the petitioners. The fact that petitioners have been working for more than two/three decades is not disputed. Nothing is forthcoming from the material filed before this Court as to whether petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts or not. 15. In the case on hand, as per the averments in the affidavit, no particulars were disclosed about the educational qualifications of the petitioners. The fact that petitioners have been working for more than two/three decades is not disputed. Nothing is forthcoming from the material filed before this Court as to whether petitioners were appointed against sanctioned posts or not. However, keeping in view the fact that petitioners have been working in respondent No.3-Temple since more than two/three decades and as the petitioners have been continuously making representations to respondents authorities to consider their case for regularization, respondents, keeping in view the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to supra, shall pass reasoned order as to whether petitioners are eligible for regularization or not, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioners are also allowed to place relevant material before the authorities. 16. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.