ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:- “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not extending time scale of pay in the cadre of Junior Assistant to the petitioner in the establishment of 3rd respondent temple as was done vide proceedings in R.C.No.A1/6437-A/2000, dated 26.08.2009 and R.C.No.A1/5810/2014, dated 28.01.2019 and issuing the proceedings in RC.No.C1/1105064/2018 dated 06.03.2020 rejecting petitioner claim as bad, illegal, arbitrary and void and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently set aside the proceedings in RC.No.C1/1105064/2018 dated 06.03.2020 and direct the respondents to grant all consequential service and monetary benefits and to pass such other order or orders ….”. 2. In the affidavit it was contended, inter alia, that petitioner was appointed as contract employee in the year 2003. Petitioner successfully completed 17 years of service in the Temple. Petitioner passed B.A. and he has been discharging the duties of Junior Assistant. Earlier petitioner filed W.P.No.3787 of 2018 seeking considering his case for regularization. This Court passed interim order, dated 07.02.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 directing the respondents to pay minimum time scale to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said interim order, Executive Officer of respondent No.3 temple issued proceedings extending the minimum time scale of Rs.13,000/- in the last grade service on 07.09.2018. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representation dated 05.12.2019 seeking extension of regular time scale of pay in the cadre of Junior Assistant as granted to other similarly situated persons. Petitioners’ representation was forwarded to respondent No.3 on 19.01.2020 and respondent No.3 rejected petitioner’s case stating that there is ban on regularization vide G.O.Rt.No.1997 dated 18.10.2005 and extension of scale is contrary to Rule 46 of G.O.Ms.No.888 dated 08.12.2000. Separate proceedings will be issued to revise three cases relied by the petitioner vide proceedings in R.C.No.C1/1105064/2018, dated 06.03.2020. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended inter alia that respondent No.3-Temple is published under Section 6(a)(ii) of the Act 30 of 1987 and the same is under administrative control of the endowments Department. Executive Officer was appointed under Section 29 of the Act and has been administering and managing the day to day affairs of the said Temple. 3. Respondent No.2 filed counter and contended inter alia that respondent No.3-Temple is published under Section 6(a)(ii) of the Act 30 of 1987 and the same is under administrative control of the endowments Department. Executive Officer was appointed under Section 29 of the Act and has been administering and managing the day to day affairs of the said Temple. The employees of respondent-Temple are not government employees and they are Temple employees. They are being paid from and out funds of respondent no.3-Temple subject to limitations under Section 57 of the Act 30 of 1987. Petitioner’s wage has been enhanced from time to time. While matter stood thus, petitioner filed W.P.No.3787 of 2018 with a prayer to extend minimum time scale to him attached to the corresponding post (Junior Assistant) or equivalent post and to declare that petitioner is entitled to be regularized in service as Junior Assistant or equivalent post in the existing vacancies or future vacancies with all consequential benefits including the monitory benefits on par with others who were regularized. Interim order was passed on 07.02.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 which reads follows: “Pending further orders, the respondent shall consider, whether the petitioner is performing the duties of Junior Assistant or Attender and pay him the minimum of time scale attached to the equivalent in the 3rd respondent temple within the period of (04) weeks from the date of a receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. Pursuant to the said interim order, basing on memo of respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.A1/1059511/2018, dated 20.07.2018, respondent No.3 issued proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/3766/2018 dated 07.09.2018 extending minimum time scale of pay attached to last grade service i.e. Rs.13,000/- per month as consolidated pay without HRA, DA, etc., as the petitioner is performing the duties as last grade service on contract basis. Pending W.P.No.3787 of 2018, the present writ petition is filed again seeking extension of time scale of pay in the cadre of Junior Assistant as was done vide proceedings in R.C.No.A1/6437-A/2000 dated 26.08.2009 and R.C.No.A1/5810/2014 dated 28.01.2019. Since the prayers sought in both the writ petitions are similar, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit, it was not disputed with regard to the fact that petitioner has been working in respondent No.3-Temple. Since the prayers sought in both the writ petitions are similar, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Counter affidavit was filed by respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit, it was not disputed with regard to the fact that petitioner has been working in 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. Petitioner has been working in respondent No.3 Temple on contract basis. Petitioner was not appointed against sanctioned post. Commissioner, Endowments did not accord permission to respondent No.3 to create the post and hence, petitioner is not entitled for extension of time scale of pay in the cadre of Junior Assistant/regularization of their services. 6. 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 petitioner 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. Petitioner cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation when the appointment to the post could be made only by following proper procedure for selection. 7. 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. Petitioner’s services are contractual and he was engaged on temporary basis in non-sanctioned posts in respondent No.3-Temple. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for regularization of services. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Petitioner’s services are contractual and he was engaged on temporary basis in non-sanctioned posts in respondent No.3-Temple. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for regularization of services. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Heard learned counsel on either side. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proceedings issued in R.C.No.A1/5810/2014 dated 28.01.2019 and R.C.No.A1/6437-A/2000, dated 26.08.2009 wherein similarly situated persons were extended the benefit of extending time scale of pay in the cadre of Junior Assistant, petitioner’s case is to be considered. However, petitioner’s case was rejected on the ground that there is ban as per G.O.Rt.No.1997, date 18.10.2005. He submits that said GO imposing ban is not applicable for extending timescale on par with similarly situated persons. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the question with regard to Rule 46 of G.O.Ms.No.888 was not raised at the time of extending timescales to other similarly situated persons. He submits that petitioner is qualified, eligible and senior, for extension of time scale in the cadre of Junior Assistant. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that since petitioner has been working for more than a decade, respondents ought to have considered petitioner’s 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 petitioner for more than a decade, are estopped from contending that there is no sanction post to absorb the petitioner. He would also contend that Government has to take decision to create post to absorb petitioner. Hence, prays to set aside the proceedings impugned. 12. Learned standing counsel would contend that there is no sanctioned post. 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 petitioner cannot be absorbed or regularized by respondent No.3-Temple. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner was engaged on contract basis and there is no sanctioned post, question of regularization of petitioner’s services does not arise. He would place reliance upon Vibhuti Shankar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., 2023 Livelaw SC 91. 13. The undisputed fact in the case on hand is that petitioner has been working in respondent No.3-Temple for more than one decade. A perusal of the affidavit discloses that petitioner possesses B.A. qualification. 14. 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 above-referred 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. 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. 15. A perusal of the above expression would indicate that appointment was made against duly sanctioned vacant post and employees, who 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. 16. 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.” 17. 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. If they have completed 10 years of service they should be regularised unless there is some valid objection to their regularisation like misconduct, etc.” 17. 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. 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. 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. 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. 18. 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. 19. In the case on hand, in the affidavit, it is averred that petitioner passed Degree (B.A.). The fact that petitioner has been working for more than a decade, is not disputed. However, nothing is forthcoming from the material filed before this Court as to whether petitioner was appointed against sanctioned post or not. 19. In the case on hand, in the affidavit, it is averred that petitioner passed Degree (B.A.). The fact that petitioner has been working for more than a decade, is not disputed. However, nothing is forthcoming from the material filed before this Court as to whether petitioner was appointed against sanctioned post or not. Extending minimum time scale does not entail petitioner to get regularize his services in the respondent No.3-Temple. However, keeping in view the fact that petitioner has been working in respondent No.3-Temple since more than one decade and as the petitioner has been making representations to respondents authorities to consider his 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 petitioner is eligible for regularization or not, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner is also allowed to place relevant material before the authorities. 20. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.