ORDER : Harinath. N, J. 1. This writ petition was allowed vide order dated 12.07.2024. W.A.1039 of 2024 was filed by the 1 st respondent, and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court set aside the order passed by this Court and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing. The respondents were permitted to file a detailed counter on both facts and law for adjudication of the writ petition on merits. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as a Junior Assistant in the establishment of Sri Chandrasekhara Swamy Devasthanam, Ch. Agraharam, West Godavari District, was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 22.10.1994 in the same Devastanam. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Sri Dhaneswai Ammavari Devastanam at Duvva Village, where he was promoted to the rank of Superintendent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer of the petitioner and the promotion extended to the post of Superintendent for the unofficial respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was in conformity with G.O.Ms.No.262, dated 20.05.2002. The service of the petitioner, along with respondent Nos.3 to 5 is in the same category as per the G.O.Ms.No.262. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were extended promotions in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.262. However, when the issue of promotion for the petitioner was considered, G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000, was applied illogically. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s service benefits, which include promotion, were denied by the illogical application of G.O.Ms.No.888. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit along with additional material papers. It is submitted that the petitioner’s name is at serial No.11 in the provisional seniority list of Superintendents working in Zone-II as on 14.12.2021, indicating promotion to the cadre of Superintendent in other than the parental Institute. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the memos issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Endowments Department-Respondent No.1 dated 20.04.2013, whereby the issue of disciplinary action initiated against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was dropped, and reference to the promotion extended to them in an institution other than their parent department is also recorded. The Vigilance Officer has observed that it is not justifiable to raise the question of the legality of the promotion of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was dropped, and reference to the promotion extended to them in an institution other than their parent department is also recorded. The Vigilance Officer has observed that it is not justifiable to raise the question of the legality of the promotion of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as Superintendents in an Institution other than the parent institution. It is also observed that there was no justification for finding fault with the promotion with effect to the respondents, and that they were also appointed to the other post in terms of G.O.Ms.No.262, dated 20.05.2002. Accordingly, the show cause notice was dropped, and further action of respondent Nos.3 to 5 was dropped. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these proceedings were issued eleven years ago, and now the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are working in the cadre of Deputy Commissioners, and the respondent No.5 is working as an Assistant Commissioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is at the fag end of his service and the denial of promotion is a gross injustice to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is still working as Superintendent on account of the denial of promotion, in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.262, as was done in the case of the respondent Nos.3 to 5. It is submitted that employees working in institutions other than parental institutions were promoted and instances of other employees who are at serial No.5 and 17 were promoted as Executive Officer Grade-I are cited. 6. As seen from the seniority list prepared by the respondent as on 14.12.2021, the petitioner has been working as Superintendent from 01.02.2009 after being promoted, whereas the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were promoted in the year 2013. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were also promoted in an institution other than their parental institution. The action of respondents in not extending G.O.Ms.No.262 to the petitioner has to be held as an act undertaken in gross violation of the law in force. It is also submitted that there is also no justification for extending G.O.Ms.No.888 to the petitioner and discriminating his services compared to the services of the respondent Nos.3 to 5. The action of respondents in not extending G.O.Ms.No.262 to the petitioner has to be held as an act undertaken in gross violation of the law in force. It is also submitted that there is also no justification for extending G.O.Ms.No.888 to the petitioner and discriminating his services compared to the services of the respondent Nos.3 to 5. The petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 to 5 who complied with the requirements of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.888 Regulation 33 of G.O defines a unit in each institution or endowment shall be a unit for the purpose of recruitment, seniority and promotion and the Rule 35 entitled the Commissioner may relax any of the rules in favour of any other persons or any class of persons for being appointed, otherwise by direct recruitment, to any office or of any post or of any person. As per G.O.Ms.No. 262, the petitioner would be entitled to the next promotion to Executive Officer Grade-I. 8. The 1st respondent has filed a counter-affidavit on 10.09.2025, after the writ petition has been remanded by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. It is submitted that the recruitment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the year 2001 was without a requisite qualification and promotion of the petitioner as Senior Assistant was without passing of departmental tests and that the further promotion of the petitioner as Superintendent was against the existing rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000. With this background, the 1st respondent states that the petitioner cannot seek promotion to the rank of Executive Officer on par with respondents Nos. 3 to 5. It is also submitted that the respondents, though they have filed a counter, failed to demonstrate how the petitioner's claim for promotion as Executive Officer on par with the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 can be denied. 9. The 1st respondent does not dispute the employment of the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5 as Temple Employees. It is submitted that the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000, are framed under G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000, and these Rules are applicable to the Temple Employees. It is also submitted that prior to the introduction of these Rules under G.O.Ms.No.888, the Temple Employees were following G.O.Ms.No.1478, dated 17.11.1986. 10. It is submitted that the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Service Rules, 2000, are framed under G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000, and these Rules are applicable to the Temple Employees. It is also submitted that prior to the introduction of these Rules under G.O.Ms.No.888, the Temple Employees were following G.O.Ms.No.1478, dated 17.11.1986. 10. It is submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the promotions of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and without challenging the promotions to the respondent Nos.3 to 5, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition. The respondent No.1 has also stated in detail the service particulars of the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5. 11. It is submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed on consolidated pay on 12.08.1987, and his services were regularised as a Junior Assistant on 06.01.2001 in Sri Chandrasekhara Swamy Temple, and the said Temple has to be considered as the parent institution of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has passed Matriculation only, and that the qualification for appointment as Junior Assistant is Intermediate, as per G.O.Ms.No.888. It is thus submitted that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the Rules. The petitioner was also promoted as Senior Assistant on 22.10.2004, though he did not pass the departmental examinations. The petitioner passed the Account Test for Subordinate Officer in November, 2003, Endowments Departmental Test Paper – II in January, 2006 and Test Paper – I in February, 2008. 12. The petitioner was further promoted to the cadre of Superintendent on 01.02.2009 in the Establishment of Sri Daneswari Ammavari Devasthanam, Duvva, West Godavari District, which is also against the G.O.Ms.No.888. The petitioner acquired B.A., Degree in 2010. 13. The service particulars of respondent Nos.3 to 5 are as follows ; S.No. Name of Employee Initial Appointment 1st promotion 2nd promotion 3rd promotion 1. N. S. Chakradhara Rao 08.05.1989 as a Clerk on consolidated pay in Velpur and Kavalipuram Group Temples, West Godavari District. His Services was regularized on 01.09.1990 in the same Temple Promoted as Senior Assistant on 18.07.2001, by then he passed the Departmental Examinations Promoted as Superintendent on 01.08.2004in Sri Mutyalamma Ammavari Temple Executive Officer Grade-I by transfer of Service on 14.07.2006 2. His Services was regularized on 01.09.1990 in the same Temple Promoted as Senior Assistant on 18.07.2001, by then he passed the Departmental Examinations Promoted as Superintendent on 01.08.2004in Sri Mutyalamma Ammavari Temple Executive Officer Grade-I by transfer of Service on 14.07.2006 2. B.H.V.S.N. Kishore Kumar 31.05.1990 as Record Assistant on Time Scale in Sri Rameshwara Swamy Temple and promoted as Junior Assistant on 01.02.1991 Promoted as Senior Assistant on 01.10.1992 in the same Institution by then he passed Departmental Examinations Promoted as Superintendent on 05.04.2000 in Daneswari Ammavari Temple Promoted as Executive Officer Grade-I on 01.04.2006 3. P. Viswanadha Raju 08.02.1993 as Record Assistant on consolidated pay. His services were regularized on 01.11.1993 in Sri Uma Vasiki Ravi Someswara Swamy Temple and promoted as Junior Assistant on 25.01.2001 Promoted as Senior Assistant on 01.08.2002, by then he passed Department al Tests Promoted as Superintendent on 04.04.2005 Promoted as Executive Officer Grade-I on 03.05.2008 14. It is submitted that the service particulars of respondent Nos.3 to 5, the respondents, obtained promotion as Temple Superintendents prior to the introduction of Service Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000. It is submitted that the concept of parent institution for the purpose of seniority and promotion in temple service was introduced by framing the Rules under G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000. 15. It is also submitted that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 were also issued show cause notices calling upon to explain why they ought not to be reverted for having secured promotions in other than parental institutions by violating Rule 33 of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000. It is submitted that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed writ petitions Nos.10296 and 13568 of 2019 challenging the show cause notices issued, and this Court granted an interim order suspending the show cause notices issued. 16. It is submitted that the Commissioner of Endowments has issued proceedings dated 30.05.2011 reverting the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant after noticing the irregularities in the service of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a revision before the Government, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2017. The petitioner filed WP.No.23044 of 2017 before this Court, and the writ petition was disposed of on 04.01.2018, directing the respondents therein to deal with the Revision afresh and also protecting the petitioner's interest pending the orders of the Revisional Authority. 17. The petitioner filed a revision before the Government, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2017. The petitioner filed WP.No.23044 of 2017 before this Court, and the writ petition was disposed of on 04.01.2018, directing the respondents therein to deal with the Revision afresh and also protecting the petitioner's interest pending the orders of the Revisional Authority. 17. It is also submitted that the petitioner is continuing as Superintendent without cooperating in the disposal of the Revision Petition. It is submitted that the promotion extended to the petitioner to the cadre of Senior Assistant is contrary to the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.888 and the subsequent promotion as Superintendent is also contrary to the Rules. As such, the petitioner has no fundamental right to seek a writ of mandamus for promoting him to the cadre of Executive Officer Grade-I. 18. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk in Sri Chandrasekhara Swamy Temple on a consolidated salary of Rs. 150/- per month with effect from 12.08.1987. Thereafter, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments vide letter dated 06.10.2001 recommended to the Founder Temple Trustee to regularise the services of the petitioner as a Clerk if there is a sanctioned post in the subject temple and if the petitioner fulfils all required conditions as imposed by the Commissioner, Endowments Department. The Founder Trustee of the said Temple vide proceedings dated 07.10.2001 has regularised the services of the petitioner with effect from 12.08.1987 and passed order No.A/2001, dated 07.10.2001. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowment Department, Kakinada had addressed a communication dated 21.10.2004 and revised the cadre strength of Sri Chandrasekhara Swamy Temple and created one new post of Senior Assistant and Attender. It is submitted that the regularisation proceedings of the petitioner were in pursuance of the order passed by the Founder Temple Trustee, dated 07.10.2001 and regularised the services of the petitioner with effect from 12.08.1987. 19. The respondent No.3 has narrated the service rendered by him and his promotion in the Department. The respondent No.3 has also submitted that the petitioner was suspended from service and that W.P.Nos.1604 of 2010, 2416 of 2010 and 8097 of 2010 were filed before this Court seeking payment of salaries and cancellation of deputation against the orders of suspension etc. 20. The respondent No.3 has also submitted that the petitioner was suspended from service and that W.P.Nos.1604 of 2010, 2416 of 2010 and 8097 of 2010 were filed before this Court seeking payment of salaries and cancellation of deputation against the orders of suspension etc. 20. It is submitted that, the respondents would have to consider the petitioner’s eligibility for promotion, the entire service record of the petitioner will be available with the respondent No.1, and it is for the respondent No.1 to extend the service benefits as extended to the respondent Nos.3 to 5 by application of G.O.Ms.No.262. 21. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. Perused the material on record and also the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.1039 of 2024. 22. As seen from the service particulars of the petitioner, the service of the petitioner was regularised with effect from 12.08.1987. The services of the 3rd respondent were regularised on 01.09.1990, the services of the 4th respondent were regularised on 31.05.1990, and the services of the 5th respondent were regularised on 01.11.1993. Evidently, though the petitioner's regularisation was passed on 07.10.2001, his services were regularised with effect from 12.08.1987. The petitioner's services were regularised with effect from a date much prior to the dates of regularisation of respondent Nos.3 to 5. Thus, the regularisation of the petitioner's services from 12.08.1987 is in consonance with the prevailing rules as on that date. The respondents have so far not placed anything on record to show that the regularisation proceedings of the petitioner dated 07.10.2001 are in contravention of the existing Rules under G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000 when the proceedings dated 07.10.2001 have in clear terms stated that the petitioner is eligible for regularization as he meets all the requirements. 23. It is pertinent to refer the correspondence of the office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department, A.P., issued vide U.O.Note in Rc.No.D2/751/2011, dated 10.02.2011, whereby certain guidelines were issued to the Superintendents A, B, C and E Sections with a direction to communicate the same to the concerned Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners for the preparation of the Provisional Seniority list. Guideline – 2 makes it clear that G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000, would have to be followed prospectively. Guideline – 2 makes it clear that G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000, would have to be followed prospectively. Guideline – 7 is as follows ; Guideline – 7 : Note in remarks column (i). Whether the length of service in promotional post is reduced due to non-completion of 5 years or 3 years as the case may be (ii) Whether he has no qualifications either Academic or passing tests (iii) Whether he was promoted without qualification (iv) Whether he was promoted in an institution other than his parent institution (after G.O.Ms.No.888). If there is no qualified candidate in the institution where he got promotion, the fact that he got promotion in post other than his parent institution may be ignored (v) If there is a qualified candidate in a particular institution and he is ignored due to himself working in some other institution and a foreigner and working in his parent institution is given promotion, and if his present claim is within 3 years and not state, he can be promoted reverting the foreigner after issuing show cause notice. After preparation of provisional seniority list by the Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners, they may be directed to communicate it to all the employees and call for their objections. The time limit for submitting objections shall be given for 15 days only and after receiving objections, a detailed report shall be submitted by the concerned Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners to this office for examining the same. Guideline – 7 (iv) of U.O.Note in Rc.No.D2/751/2011, dated 10.02.2011 had given raise to claims to certain individuals working in the institutions, who took promotions other than their parent institutions have represented for placing their names in the seniority list by taking undue advantage of Guideline – 7 (iv) and requested for appointing them as Executive Officers. As such, the Office of the Commissioner, Endowments Department has issued U.O.Note in Rc.No.D2/751/2011, dated 30.04.2013, deleting Guideline – 7 (iv). 24. It is not explained in what manner the petitioner initial appointment and subsequent promotions can be classifies as against the existing Rules more so when the respondents Nos 1 and 2 have not pressed into service G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000 for the cases of respondent Nos.3 to 5. It is also not in dispute that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have passed orders of reversion of the petitioner from the post of Superintendent to the post of Senior Assistant. It is also not in dispute that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have passed orders of reversion of the petitioner from the post of Superintendent to the post of Senior Assistant. The said issue is still under consideration with the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Revision is pending adjudication with the respondent Nos.1 and 2 from 2018 onwards. Nothing is placed before this Court for the delay in considering the review as per the directions of this Court passed in W.A.No.1888 of 2017. The Writ Appeal was disposed off on 04.01.2018, whereby a direction was passed to the respondents therein to deal with the revision of the petitioner and dispose it in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The protective orders passed in W.P.No.23044 of 2017 were directed to be continued until the disposal of the revision. The petitioner filed W.P.No.1383 of 2022 before this Court, aggrieved by the acts of the respondent in hearing the revision petition on 06.01.2022 in contravention of the interim orders passed in IA.No.No.1 of 2018 in WP.No.43780 of 2018. 25. The inaction on part of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in deciding the review petition as directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1888 of 2017 has resulted in the petitioner repeatedly approaching this Court aggrieved by the various acts of omission and commission of the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Nothing should have precluded the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in passing appropriate orders on the revision petition of the petitioner strictly in terms of the order passed by the Ho’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1888 of 2017. 26. At any rate, the respondent Nos.3 to 5 whose services were regularized from a date much after the date of regularization of the petitioner have been promoted in other than their parent institution and when the issue of promotion of the petitioner came up for consideration, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have illogically applied the 2000 Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000. The petitioner’s case also be considered for promotion on par with respondent Nos.3 to 5. The writ petition Nos.10296 of 2019 and 13568 of 2019 filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are pending consideration on the file of this Court. 27. The petitioner’s case also be considered for promotion on par with respondent Nos.3 to 5. The writ petition Nos.10296 of 2019 and 13568 of 2019 filed by the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are pending consideration on the file of this Court. 27. During the course of arguments, it is informed that the respondents Nos.3 to 5 are now serving as Deputy Commissioners after being subsequently promoted. 28. It is evident that though the petitioner’s services were regularised much prior to the date of the regularisation of services of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the petitioner was not extended the benefit of promotions. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have discriminated against the petitioner's services by applying G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000, to the petitioner's services. When the petitioner’s services were regularised with effect from 12.08.1987, the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.888, dated 08.12.2000 cannot be made applicable. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner, as on date, has acquired all the qualifications for consideration of his case for promotion. 29. The respondents shall have to consider the case of the petitioner from the date he has acquired the qualifications. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner, as on date, has acquired the requisite qualifications for consideration for further promotions. The respondents shall have to follow the seniority by counting the petitioner’s seniority from the date on which he acquires the required qualification or passes the Departmental tests, and the petitioner shall be considered for further promotions in accordance with the seniority in which he is placed. 30. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has to be extended the same service benefits, including promotions, as were extended to the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 by counting the seniority for the petitioner from the date he acquired the required qualifications for the relevant post. 31. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.