ORDER
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.
1. As the question to be considered in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order.
2. The petitioners challenged the competency of the Commissioner (1st respondent) in transferring them from one Institution (Temple) to another Institution in the State of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that such transfers are illegal and without jurisdiction. The following is the list submitted by the petitioners with regard to their transfers.
SI. W.P.No. Petitioner Working Transferred By
No. Name in to Proceeding
No.
1. W.P.No. 11835/97 P.S.R. Sub- Sri Durga- Simha- Re.No. Al/
ramanyam malleswara chalam 24393/97-31,
Swamy dt. 7-6-97.
varla
Devastha-
nam,
Vijayawada
2. W.P.No. 13638/97 P. Veera- " Rc.No. Al /
bhadrarao 24393/97-4,
dt. 7-6-97.
3. W.P.No. 13655/97 C. Durga " Rc.No. Al/
Prasad 24393/97-63,
dt. 7-6-97.
4. W.P.No. 13657/97 K. Rama Annavaram Rc.No. Al/
Rao 24393/97-39,
dt. 7-6-97.
5. W.P.No. 13660/97 M. Tiruma- " Simhachalam Rc.No. Al/
leswararao 24393/97-65,
dt. 7-6-97
6. W.P.No. 13662/97 P. Prasada " " Rc.No. Al /
Rao 24393/97-103,
dt.7-6-97.
7. W.P.No. 13664/97 G.V. Prasad " Annavaram Rc.No. Al/
24393/97-71,
dt. 7-6-97.
8. W.P.No. 13667/97 P. Gopi " Simhachalam Rc.No. Al/
24393/97-106,
dt. 7-6-97.
9. W.P.No. 13668/97 V. Surya- " Rc.No. Al/
narayana 24393/97-109,
Murthy dt. 7-6-97.
10. W.P.No. 13696/97 Ch. Malli- " Annavaram Rc.No. Al/
karjuna Rao 24393/97-74,
dt. 7-6-97.
11. W.P.No.14544/97 B. Gopi- Sri Kanaka Sri M.S.N. Rc.No. B2/
chand Mahalakshmi Charities, 30098/97-17,
Ammavari Kakinada, dt. 8-6-97.
Devasthanam, E.G.Dt.
Visakhapatnam.
12. W.P.No.14608/97 V. Rambabu " Sri Rc.No. B2/
Pydithalli 30098/97-21,
Ammavari dt. 8-6-97.
Temple,
Vizianagaram
3. In answering the above contention either in affirmative or negative, it is appropriate to narrate a few facts as given in the affidavit and counter- affidavit of the Writ Petitions and also some of the provisions of the Act which are governing the issue involved and the authoritative pronouncements on such issue. The law which governs the contentions raised in these Writ Petitions are – Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 (for short, Act 1966/old Act) and the Rules framed thereunder and the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, Act 1987/new Act). Act 1966 was repealed by Act 1987. The object of the Act is to consolidate the law relating to the administration and the governance of the Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said Act came into force in the State of A.P. with effect from 21-1-1991 vide G.O.JMs. No. 43, Revenue, dt. 18-11-1991 published in A.P. Gazette, Part-I (Ext.) dt. 21-1-1991. It applies to all public charitable institutions and endowments, whether registered or not, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, other than Wakfs governed by the provisions of the Wakfs Act, 1954. As Explanation to Section 1 of the Act “public charitable institutions and endowments” defines that they shall include every charitable institution or endowment the^ administration of which is for the time being vested in any department of Government, or Civil Court, Zilla Praja Parishad, Municipality or Local Authority, or any company, society, organisation, institution or other person; all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments whether registered or not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 201, dt. 12-2-1982,eight temples in the State are classified as one unit/ Category. The following are the eight temples:
“1. Sri Varaha Lakshminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam.
2. Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram.
3. Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Devasthanam,Vijayawada.
4. Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam.
5. Sri Venkateswara Swamy Devasthanam, Dwaraka Tirumala.
6. Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam.
7. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta.
8. Sri Raja Rajeswari Swamy Devasthanam, Vemulavada.”
4. As per the scheme of the Rules, the institutions are managed by trustee duly constituted, approved or appointed. All the temples will have the officers of the cadre of Superintendent under the Old rules framed under the Act, 1966 treating all the eight institutions as one unit for the purpose of recruitment, transfers, promotion, seniority and discharge for want of vacancy etc. The employees of the eight institutions shall consist of the following classes and categories viz.,
Class I (Ministerial Branch)
Category: 1. Superintendent
2. Senior Assistant
3. Junior Assistant
4. Typist and Steno Typist
5. Telephone Operator
6. Shroff, Cashier
7. Record Assistant and Roneo Operator
8. Attender and Driver
Class II (Engineering Branch-Civil)
Category: 1. Deputy Executive Engineer
2. Additional Assistant Engineer
3. Draughtsman Grade-I
4. Draughtsman Grade-II
5. Draughtsman Grade-Ill
6. Tracer
7. Work Maistry.
Class HI (Electrical Branch)
Category: 1. Additional Assistant Engineer (Electrical)
2. Electrician, Civil Mechanic
3. Wireman
Class IV (Water Works Branch)
Category: 1. Additional Assistant Engineer (Water Works)
2. Mechanic
3. Operator
Class V (Medical Branch)
Category: 1. Medical Officer
2. Compounder
3. Nurse
Class VI (Health Branch)
Category: 1. Sanitary Inspector
Class VII (Religious Branch)
Category: 1. Stanacharya
2. Archaka
3. Assistant Archaka
4. Veda Parayanadar
5. Cook
6. Assistant Cook
Class VIII (Mela Branch)
Category: 1. Dolu, Sruthi, Thalam Artists”
5. For non-hereditory Office or service in the temples, the appointing authority under the old Act, as mentioned in Section 31 thereof, shall be the trustee. Under sub-section (4) Section 31 of the old Act, where the income of an institution or temple exceeds Rs. 2,00,000/-, the appointing authority was Executive Officer. Sub-sections 1 and 4 of Section 31 of the old Act reads as follows.
31. Appointment etc. of office holders and servants:-
(1) Vacancies, whether permanent or temporary, amongst the office- holders or servants of a charitable or religious institution or endowment shall be filled by the trustee in every case where the office or service is not hereditary.
(2) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx (3) xxxxx xxxxx xxxx
(4) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-section, in the case of a charitable or religious institution or endowment whose annual income exceeds rupees two lakhs not being an institution or endowment which has only a hereditary trustee the Executive Officer shall appoint the office holders and servants thereof.”
6. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are the employees as categorised by 1987 Rules. Section 5 says that for administrative purpose it divides the State into regions, divisions and sub-divisions specified. Section 6 deals with the preparation of list of charitable and religious institutions and endowments on the basis of income. Section 8 speaks about the powers and functions of Commissioner and Additional Commissioner. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 reads as follows:
“Sec. 8. Powers and functions of Commissioner and Additional Commissioner:-
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the administration of all Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments shall be under the general superintendence and control of the Commissioner and such superintendence and control shall include the power to pass any order which may be deemed necessary to ensure that such institutions and endowments are properly administered and their income is duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist.”
Section 9 speaks about powers and functions of Regional Joint Commissioner. Section 10 speaks about powers and functions of Deputy Commissioner. Section 11 speaks about powers and functions of Assistant Commissioner. Section 12 speaks about powers of Commissioner etc., to enter and inspect institutions and endowments. Section 13 speaks about Commissioner etc., to observe appropriate form, usages and practices. Section 14 speaks about the vesting of all properties in the institution or endowment which reads as follows:
“Sec. 14: Vesting of all properties in the institution or endowment:- All properties belonging to, or given or endowed to a charitable or religious institution or endowment shall, vest in the charitable or religious institution or endowment as the case may be.”
Section 15 speaks about the appointment of Board of Trustees. It reads as follows:
Sec. 15: Appointment of Board of Trustees:-
(1) In respect of a charitable or religious institution or endowment included in the list published under Clause (a) of Section 6 –
(a) whose annual income exceeds rupees ten lakhs, the Government shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of (nine) persons appointed by them:
(b) whose annual income does not exceed rupees ten lakhs, the Commissioner shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of (seven) persons appointed by him.
(2) In respect of a charitable or religious institution or endowment included in the list published under Clause (b) of Section 6, the Deputy Commissioner having jurisdiction shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of (seven) persons appointed by him.
(3) In the case of any charitable or religious institution or endowment included in the list published under Clause (c) of Section 6, the Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction shall constitute a Board of Trustees consisting of (five) persons appointed by him: Provided that the Assistant Commissioner may either in the interest of the institution or endowment or for any other sufficient cause or for any reasons to be recorded in writing appoint a single trustee instead of a Board of Trustees.”
Section 23 speaks about the powers of the trustee and it reads as follows:
Sec. 23. Powers of the trustee:-
(1) The trustee of every charitable or religious institution or endowment shall administer its affairs, manage its properties and apply its funds in accordance with the terms of the trust, the usage of the institution or endowment and all lawful directions which a competent authority may issue in respect thereof and as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with such affairs, fund and properties if they were of his own.
(2) A trustee shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to exercise all powers incidental to the prudent and beneficial administration of the charitable or religious institution or endowment and to the performance of the functions entrusted to him.
(3) A trustee shall not spend the funds of the charitable or religious institution orendowment for meeting any costs, charges or expenses incurred by him in any suit, appeal or application or other proceedings for or incidental to the establishment of his appointment to or removal from office or any disciplinary action taken against him.
Provided that the trustee may reimburse himself in respect of such costs, charges and expenses if he is specifically permitted to do so by an order passed under Section 136.
(4) (a) It shall be lawful for a trustee of a religious institution by an order, to prohibit within the premises of the religious institution or within such area belonging to that institution as may be specified in the order.
(i) sale, possession, use or consumption of any intoxicating liquor or drug, or cigarettes including beedies and chuttas;
(ii) gaming with cards, dice, counters, money or other instrument of gaming;
(iii) sale, possession, preparation or consumption of meat or other food stuffs containing meat;
(iv) slaughter, killing or maiming of any animal or bird for any purpose.
(b) Any person contravening an order made by the trustee under Clause (a) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or with both;
(c) Every offence punishable under this sub-section shall be congnizable offence within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973;
Provided that no police officer shall arrest any person for such offence except on a written complaint made by the trustee or Executive Officer of a religious institution or endowment:
(d) Every person contravening an order made by the trustee under Clause (a) shall be deemed to be an ‘encroacher’ within the meaning of Section 83.
(5) (a) Notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, whoever in the local area-
(i) imports, exports, transports, or possesses liquor or any intoxicating drug or cigarettes including beedies and chuttas;
(ii) manufactures liquor or any intoxicating drug;
(iii) cultivates the hemp plant or collects any portion of such plant from which an intoxicating drug can be manufactured;
(iv) sells liquor or any intoxicating drug;
(v) consumes or buys liquor or any intoxicating drug;
(vi) allows any of the acts aforesaid upon the premises in his immediate possession; or
(vii) sells or possesses, prepares or consumes meat or other food stuffs containing meat; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees or with both.
(b) Every offence punishable under this sub-section shall be cognizable offence within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(6) (a) The trustee of a religious institution or endowment shall have power subject to such conditions as the Commissioner may by general or special order impose, to fix fees for the performance of archana or any service or ritual or ceremony connected with such institution or endowment;
(b) The trustee shall have power to determine and fix place for breaking the coconut within the premises of the temple for the convenience of devotees and to maintain cleanliness in the temple.
(7) It shall be lawful for the trustee of an institution or endowment to convene a meeting of devotees, persons having interest and beneficiaries in the manner prescribed for obtaining suggestions for the betterment of such institution or endowment.”
Section 39 of the Act gives powers to the Commissioner to transfer an officer or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment from one institution to another. The same is extracted hereunder:
“Sec. 39. Transfer of office holders and servants:
(1) The Commissioner shall have power to transfer any office holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment from that institution or endowment to any other institution or endowment in accordance with such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf.
(2) The Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the area shall have power to transfer any office holder or servant attached to a charitable or religious institution or endowment from that institution or endowment to any other institution or endowment in accordance with such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf.”
7. The Commissioner of Endowments has transferred the petitioners from one institution to another institution within the unit. Aggrieved by the same, these Writ Petitions have been filed.
8. The main grounds of attack are: (1) that the transfer from one institution to another by the Commissioner is quite illegal and without jurisdiction; (2) the Commissioner has got jurisdiction to transfer only when the rules are framed as required under Section 39 whereas no rules are framed as yet by the Government to deal with the matter of transfers. When once the petitioners are appointed not by the Government but by the ‘trustees’, ‘the trustees’ alone have the power to transfer the petitioners and not the Commissioner; (3) the transfers are with mala fide intention and the said transfers affected their service conditions. Thus contending, Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the Writ Petitions be allowed. To substantiate his contentions he placed reliance on some of the authorities. Firstly he relied on a decision in The Commissioner of Endowments Dept. A.P. and Anr. v. G. Venkatesxvarulu, 1976 ALT 109 (S.N.) According to him, as no rules under the Act 1987 are framed which deal about the transfer, the Commissioner should not have transferred all the petitioners. The observations made by this Court in the above cited decision are extracted hereunder:
“Institutions with small incomes should not be touched either by grouping or by appointing Executive Officers unless the Government makes rules in this behalf. It makes the intention of the Legislature plain that the Commissioner whenever he wants any grouping of certain institutions and endowments can do so only ‘in accordance with’ the Rules if any, made by the Government. In other words, if there are no Rules, the Commissioner shall not exercise the power.”
For the proposition, when once a provision has been interpreted in a particular manner, the same shall be continued, he placed reliance on General Officer, Commanding-in-Chief v. Subhas Chandra, wherein Supreme Court held as follows:
“The question, however, is whether the Central Government is entitled to frame rules for transfer of the employees of the Cantonment Boards under the substituted Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 280 of the Cantonments Act. It is true that under Clause (c), as it now stands, the Central Government can frame rules pertaining to conditions of service of the Cantonment Board employees. But, in our opinion, even in spite of substituted Clause (c), the Central Government will not be entitled to frame rules for transfer of an employee from one Cantonment Board to another within the State for the reasons stated already, namely, (1) the Cantonment Boards are autonomous bodies; (2) the service under the Cantonment Board is neither a centralised service nor is it a service at the State-level; and (3) any such transfer of an employee will mean termination of service of the employee in the Cantonment Board from where he is transferred and a fresh appointment by the Cantonment Board which he joins on such transfer.”
He also placed reliance on a decision in Om Prakash v. Swarup Singh, wherein it is held,
“As is clear by now, the fundamental basis of the contention that the power of transfer under the Education Act and its Regulations continues in force even after the enactment of the Service Commission Act rests on the assumption that the power of appointment does not include the power of transfer. In our opinion, the assumption is unsustainable. The scheme under the Education Act envisages the appointment of a Principal in relation to a specific College. The appointment is in relation to that College and to no other. Moreover, different Colleges may be owned by different bodies or organisations, so that each Principal serves a different employer. Therefore, on filling the office of a Principal to a College a new contract of employment with a particular employer comes into existence. There is no State-level service to which Principals are appointed. Had that been so, it would have been possible to say that when a Principal is transferred from one College to another no fresh appointment is involved. But when a Principal is appointed in respect of a particular College and is thereafter transferred as a Principal of another College it can hardly be doubted that a new appointment comes into existence. Although the process of transfer may be governed by considerations and move through a machinery different from the considerations governing the appointment of a person ab initio as Principal, the nature of the transaction is the same, namely, that of appointment and that is so whether the appointment be through direct recruitment, through promotion from the teaching staff of the same institution or by transfer from another institution.”
Likewise he also placed reliance on Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR I960 SC 430 wherein it is held,
“But without the principles, Clause 4 of the order is not effective. The system of permits which this clause is designed to introduce can come into existence only if the permits can be issued; but permits can be issued only in accordance with the principles laid down by the Central Government. It is not possible to build on the use of the words “may specify” in Clause 4 an argument that so long as no principles are specified the Controller would have authority to issue permits by exercise of his own judgment and discretion. The words used in Clause 4 do not permit such a construction and compel the conclusion that so long as the principles are not specified by the Central Government no permit can be issued by the Controller. Enforcement of the provision that no person shall acquire or agree to acquire except under a permit, would thus, so long as the principles are not specified in a legal manner as required by sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, would mean a total stoppage of the copper trade not only of the transactions of dealers but of any transaction whatever in imported copper. On the fact of it this could not be a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public. There is no escape therefore from the conclusion that so long as principles are not specified by the Central Government by an order notified in accordance with sub-section (5) and laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with sub- section (6) of Section 3, the regulation by Clause 4 as it is now worded is not within the saving provisions of Articles 19 (5) and 19 (6) of the Constitution, and is void as taking away the rights conferred by Articles 19 (1) (f) and 19 (1) (g).”
9. On the other hand, Sri Metta Chandrasekhara Rao, learned Advocate appearing for the Institutions submits that the transfers have been effected within one unit and that the order was passed by the Commissioner who is competent to appoint and transfer and mere non-framing of rules dealing with the transfers does not take away the power of the Commissioner and the transfers were made in the public interest and not with any mala fide intention. The said transfers have not resulted in affecting the service conditions of the petitioners. Lastly, he contended that the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners have no application to the facts of the case. According to him, the following are the authorities to support his case and the orders of transfer are within the jurisdiction and are valid. To support his contention that when the authority has power to do a particular act even in the absence of the rules framed he can carryout the said acts which are necessary and accidental; in other words, when the Commissioner has got powers to appoint under Section 39 of the new Act he has got the power to transfer also, he placed reliance on B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, wherein it is held,
It would be convenient to deal with this argument at this stage. Mr. Nambiar contends that the words “shall be as set forth in the rules of recruitment of such service specially made in that behalf” clearly show that till the rules are made in that behalf no recruitment can be made to any service. We are unable to accept this contention. First it is not obligatory under provisio to Article 309 to make rules of recruitment, etc., before a service can be constituted or a post created or filled. This is not to say that it is not desirable that ordinarily rules should be made on all matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power, to make laws. It follows from this that the State Government will have executive power in respect of List II, Entry 41, State Public Services. It was settled by this Court in Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, , that it is not necessary that there must be a law already in existence before the executive is enabled to function and that the powers of the executive are limited merely to the carrying out of these laws. We see nothing in the terms of Article 309 of the Constitution which abridges the power of the executive to act under Article 162 of the Constitution without a law. It is hardly necessary to mention that if there is a statutory Rule or an Act on the matter, the executive must abide by that Act or Rule and it cannot in exercise of the executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution ignore or act contrary to that Rule or Act”.
10. He also relied on U.P.S.E. Board v. City Board, Mussorie, wherein it is held,
“Section 46 (1) of the Act does not say that no Grid Tariff can be fixed until regulations under Section 79 (h) are made. It only provides that the Grid Tariff shall be in accordance with any regulations made in this behalf. That means that if there were any regulations, the Grid Tariff should be fixed in accordance with such regulations and nothing more. The framing of regulations under Section 79 (h) of the Act cannot be a condition precedent for fixing the Grid Tariff.”
11. He further relied on Surinder Singh v. Central Government, wherein it is held,
“Where a statute confers powers on an authority to do certain acts or exercise power in respect of certain matters, subject to rules, the exercise of power conferred by the statute does not depend on the existence of Rules unless the statute expressly provides for the same. In other words framing of the rules is not condition precedent to the exercise of the power expressly and unconditionally conferred by the statute. The expression “subject to the Rules” only means, in accordance with the rules, if any. If rules are framed, the powers so confirmed (sic. conferred) on authority could be exercised in accordance with these rules. But if no rules are framed there is no void and the authority is not precluded from exercising the power conferred by the statute.”
12. According to him the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cases are applicable to the facts of the case. While dealing with the transfer powers, etc., a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 37/70 dt. 26-7-1971 held that the transfer of an official from one institution to another did not conflict with rule and such transfer was in accordance with the rules but it did not affect the service conditions in any way. He also stated that the Commissioner has got the power and jurisdiction to transfer an employee of one Devasthanam to another Devasthanam which are religious or charitable institutions and such power is existing under the Act. The Court also observed that the Commissioner has got administrative and superintendence powers over all the Institutions and its employees situated in the State.
13. After going through the averments made in the Writ Petitions, we once again went through some of the provisions of the Act extracted above and also the authorities relied upon by both sides. It is not in dispute that all the eight Institutions are religious or endowment Institutions and all of them constitute one Unit or one category. Appointing authority for all the eight temples is the Commissioner. Transfer of an official from one temple to another does not lead to termination unlike in case of transfer of an official of one cantonment Board to another. The case of the petitioners cannot be compared to the status and service conditions of Principals of private colleges as their service conditions are governed by the bye-laws of each society. Thus the decisions relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the case. On the other hand, the decisions relied upon by the respondents’ Counsel apply in all fours to the facts of the case. The petitioners are working in several Institutions. The power to appoint and transfer of such officers vests with the Commissioner. Section 39 gives powers to the Commissioner to transfer such official from one Institution to another without affecting their service conditions. When once power is conferred on a particular authority, here the Commissioner, in the matter of appointment of its employees, such an authority has got powers to transfer. Apart from this, Section 39 of the new Act is quite clear as to the powers of Commissioner for transfers. The assertion of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that unless rules are framed under the present new Act, as framed under the old Act, in the matter of transfer, the Commissioner does not get jurisdiction and the present transfers as such are without jurisdiction in the absence of rules as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act, has no force. When it is not in dispute that an authority who appoints will have power to transfer, mere absence of Rules will not render the power of transfer of such officer illegal. A close reading of Section 39 (1) makes it clear that the transfers may be made. The word used in respect of framing of Rules is ‘may’ but not ‘shall’. After all making the Rules is only to avoid confusion or ambiguity in carrying out the purport of the Act more effectively. In other words, it is a procedural or internal regulation as to how the authorities have to discharge the powers and by whom the power has to be exercised. When the transfer is within the ambit of the power of appointment, absence of rules dealing with the transfers will not make such transfers illegal. Further the transfers are given effect within the Unit. It is not shown how the service conditions of any of the petitioners are affected. After all when an employee/person accepts a job, he has also to accept the liability of transfer, if such post is transferable one. Transfer is an incidence of service. Thus, interference can be made only if the transfer is made with mala fide intention or without having competence or when it intends to affect the conditions of service of the officer transferred. But, none of the above circumstances are made out in the present transfers. Hence, there is no merit in these Writ Petitions and they deserve to be dismissed.
14. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
15. Before parting with the matter, we would like to make it clear that in Writ Petition No. 11835 of 1997, the case of the petitioner who has been transferred from Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada, to Sri Varahalakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Simhachalam, stands on a different footing. This is a case where the petitioner is a patient suffering from cancer so also his wife. Often he has to make trips to Hyderabad for Chemotheraphy etc., tests. He is of the Superintendent cadre. He requests to stay at Vijayawada itself where his kith and kin are with him. He even submitted that if he is not retained in Durgamalleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam, Vijayawada, he may be posted to any other temple coming within the jurisdiction of the authorities situated in Vijayawada or nearby place by protecting his salary and all other consequential benefits which he is entitled to. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be retained either at Vijayawada or nearby place purely on humanitarian grounds.
16. In the circumstances, we observe that if the petitioner submits a representation to the Commissioner for seeking his retention either at Vijayawada or at nearby place on health grounds, his case be considered sympathetically. It is also made clear that such retention or posting at nearby place shall not be a precedent for other cases.