AP High Court Remands Archaka Eligibility Dispute After Key Facts Withheld From Single Bench

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Lisa Gill set aside a Single Bench order directing implementation of a 2010 Endowments Circular, finding that material facts about the appellant's prior permissions to travel abroad were never placed before the court.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, sitting at Amaravati, has set aside a Single Bench order that directed temple authorities to implement Circular Memo No. 21 dated 10.11.2010 issued by the Endowments Department, which bars Archakas who have gone abroad from performing Archakatwam at the sanctum sanctorum of temples. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ninala Jayasurya, deciding Writ Appeal No. 533 of 2026 on 1 May 2026, found that the Single Bench had disposed of the underlying writ petition without being informed of a Deputy Commissioner's order dated 27.11.2025, two pending writ petitions challenging the Circular's validity, and the fact that the appellant had obtained official permission to travel abroad years before the Circular came into force. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration.

The Dispute Over the 2010 Endowments Circular

The controversy centres on Circular Memo No. 21 dated 10.11.2010 issued by the Endowments Department, which provides that an Archaka of a temple is not permitted to go abroad and, if such permission is granted, he cannot be allowed to perform Archakatwam in the Garbhalayam of the main temple. A separate directive, the Pramanika dated 20.12.2024 issued by the Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Sringeri Sharada Peetham, was also in play.

Respondent No. 1, D.S.S.S. Subrahmanyam Somayaji, had filed Writ Petition No. 8102 of 2026 before the Single Bench seeking a declaration that the inaction of respondents in not following the 2010 Circular and the 2024 Pramanika was illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. The Single Bench, by order dated 30.03.2026, disposed of that writ petition and directed the respondents to follow both the Circular and the Pramanika.

The appellant, Godavarthi Srinivasacharyulu, is a Pradhana Archaka at Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam. He was not impleaded as a party in W.P. No. 8102 of 2026, even though the writ petitioner had specifically referenced an earlier proceeding — W.P. No. 41481 of 2022 — in which the appellant had been arrayed as Respondent No. 4.

Earlier Litigation and the Promotion Dispute

W.P. No. 41481 of 2022 had been filed by the same writ petitioner to challenge the promotion of the appellant and another person (since deceased) as Pradhana Archaka vide proceedings dated 18.09.2022, based on a final seniority list dated 12.09.2022. The grievance in that petition was that the promotion was made without considering objections filed by the petitioner and without applying the 2010 Circular's bar on Archakas who had gone abroad.

This High Court, by order dated 18.09.2025 in W.P. No. 41481 of 2022, remanded the matter to the competent authority for passing fresh orders in terms of the 2010 Circular, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner therein as well as the appellant, within one month from the date of receipt of the order's copy.

Pursuant to that remand, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 27.11.2025. That order specifically held that the appellant had gone to the United States of America after obtaining necessary permission and orders from the Commissioner of Endowments — first on 07.08.2001, on loss of pay in the cadre of Paricharaka, for a period of one year, and subsequently from time to time up to 23.08.2006, again on loss of pay. The Deputy Commissioner's order concluded that the 2010 Circular, having been issued after the appellant's foreign travel had concluded, would have no application to his case.

What the Single Bench Was Not Told

The appellant's counsel, Mr. D.V. Sasidhar, argued before the Division Bench that none of these facts were placed before the Single Judge at the time of deciding W.P. No. 8102 of 2026. The Deputy Commissioner's order of 27.11.2025, which directly addressed the appellant's eligibility, was not brought to the Single Bench's notice. Nor were the two pending writ petitions — W.P. No. 35122 of 2025 and W.P. No. 36643 of 2025 — in which the appellant himself had challenged the validity of the 2010 Circular as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

W.P. No. 35122 of 2025 had been filed before W.P. No. 8102 of 2026 and was pending adjudication at the time the Single Bench passed its order on 30.03.2026. The appellant's counsel pointed out that the question of the Circular's validity was not even raised in W.P. No. 8102 of 2026, yet the Single Bench's direction to implement the Circular would directly affect the outcome of the earlier, still-pending challenge to it.

Counsel for the appellant argued that the official respondents, who were aware of all these proceedings, also failed to bring these facts to the Single Bench's notice — for reasons, as the counsel put it, best known to them.

Counsel for Respondent No. 1 defended the 2010 Circular as being in accordance with law and argued it had rightly been directed to be implemented. However, he was unable to deny that the question of the Circular's validity — including whether it violated principles of natural justice or any applicable law — was the subject matter of W.P. No. 35122 of 2025, which was admittedly pending.

Division Bench's Reasoning for Remand

The Division Bench accepted the appellant's position. Chief Justice Lisa Gill, writing the order, held that “complete facts, which have a material bearing on the controversy at hand, were not brought to notice of learned Single Judge at the time of decision.” On that basis, the order dated 30.03.2026 was found to be unsustainable.

The Bench also granted leave to appeal by allowing I.A. No. 2 of 2026, the application filed by the appellant seeking leave to file the appeal despite not having been a party to the writ petition. Counsel for the respondents were unable to deny the factual position that the appellant had not been impleaded even though the writ petitioner was aware of his involvement from the earlier proceedings.

The Division Bench was careful to record that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter. The question of whether the 2010 Circular applies to the appellant, whether his prior permissions insulate him from its operation, and the broader validity of the Circular itself are all left open for the Single Bench to consider afresh.

Outcome

The Division Bench set aside the order dated 30.03.2026 and remanded the matter to the Single Bench to consider the entire controversy in a wholesome manner, taking into account the factual aspects detailed in the appeal — including the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 27.11.2025, the appellant's permissions to travel abroad prior to 2006, and the pendency of W.P. No. 35122 of 2025 and W.P. No. 36643 of 2025. The appellant was granted liberty to file appropriate applications before the Single Bench to bring all relevant facts on record. The Writ Appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were directed to stand closed.