COMMON ORDER: VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. Writ Petition No. 29403 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing or absorbing the services of the Petitioners as Drivers in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi from the date of their initial appointment in the available sanctioned posts or by creating necessary posts as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the Petitioners as Drivers in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi from the date of their initial appointment and with all consequential benefits including payment of arrears of salary from the said date.” Writ Petition No.38488 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents in issuing the Proceedings in Rc.No.TE5/GM/TTD/TPT/2018, DT.21.09.2018 rejecting the request of the petitioners for their absorption/regularization of services in the cadre of Drivers in the existing vacancies by taking their long length of service into consideration is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, without power and authority and also violative of the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 and consequently direct the respondents to absorb/regularize the services of the petitioners in the cadre of Drivers in the Transport Department in the existing vacancies.” 2. Heard Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, initially the Petitioners filed W.P.No.29403 of 2018 seeking to direct the Respondents to regularize their services as Drivers in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupathi from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits including payment of arrears of salary. During pendency of the said writ petition, an interim order has been passed by this Court vide Order dated 21.08.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 directing the Respondents to consider the representations of the Petitioners, dated 04.06.2018 and 17.07.2018, pending dispose of the main writ petition. During pendency of the said writ petition, an interim order has been passed by this Court vide Order dated 21.08.2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018 directing the Respondents to consider the representations of the Petitioners, dated 04.06.2018 and 17.07.2018, pending dispose of the main writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel brought it to the notice of this Court that, despite the said Order passed by this Court, the Executive Officer of T.T.D had taken a decision over the issue and passed the impugned Order rejecting the claim of the Petitioners and the said Order is assailed in W.P.No.38488 of 2018. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the impugned order which was passed by the Executive Officer of T.T.D, without placing the matter before the Board of Trustees per se illegal and is against the Statute. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondents/T.T.D would submit that the impugned Order was passed in pursuance to the interim order passed in W.P.No.29403 of 2018. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, the cause title in the said petition would show the description of the Respondents as “Board of Trustees, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Tirupathi”. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, the Petitioners in the said case sought a direction to the Respondents to consider their representations and the Court had also directed all the Respondents to pass orders. It is submitted that, the Executive Officer might have passed the Order since he is representing T.T.D. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams is not shown as an independent Respondent in the said matter and that made the Executive Officer to pass Order on his own, without placing the matter before the Board of Trustees. 5. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that, for giving laddu card, medical card, increments etc., the matter was placed before the Board of Trustees and the Board had taken a decision over the very small issues. 5. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that, for giving laddu card, medical card, increments etc., the matter was placed before the Board of Trustees and the Board had taken a decision over the very small issues. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, in the case of employees pertaining to Forest Department, who are similarly situated like the Petitioners herein, the very same Executive Officer had placed the matter before the Board and the Board, in turn, had accepted and sent the proposal to the Government and the Government have accepted the said proposal vide Order dated 30.09.2022 and the same was not done in the present cases. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondents / T.T.D would submit that, such being the case, the Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, in the light of Section 97 of the A.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, regarding the policy matters, Board of Trustees has every authority to take a decision and the same has not been done in the present case. For ready references, Section 97 of the said Act is extracted hereunder: “ 97. Powers and functions of the Board- The Board shall in addition to the powers conferred and functions entrusted to it by this Act, exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed in regard to matters of policy and general superintendence and review in relation to the Administration of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams having due regard to public interest and the services and amenities to be provided to and welfare safety measures to be undertaken for, the pilgrims, devotees and worshippers resorting to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams.” 8. Coming to the present case, the Executive Officer has taken a decision and rejected the claim of the Petitioners, which is nonest under law and the same has to be set aside. 9. In that view, it is apposite to dispose of these Writ Petitions, without touching the merits of the same by remanding the matter to the Respondents-Authorities with the following directions. 9. In that view, it is apposite to dispose of these Writ Petitions, without touching the merits of the same by remanding the matter to the Respondents-Authorities with the following directions. (i) Petitioners shall submit a comprehensive representation covering their pleadings supported by the relevant documents and the judicial precedents to the Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. (ii) The Executive Officer, in turn, shall place the same before the Board of Trustees as expeditiously as possible. (iii) The Board of Trustees shall take a decision over the matter according to governing Rules and law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation of the Petitioners. (iv) Depending on the decision to be taken, the Board shall forward the proposal to the Government forthwith for getting necessary approval. (v) Respondent No.1 / Government is directed to consider the said proposal and take appropriate decision according to governing Rules and Law, within a period of three months therefrom. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.