2008(8) Supreme 642
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
T. Venkateswarulu — Appellant
versus
Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 6583-6584 of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 3498-3499 of 2005)
Decided on : 07-11-2008
(1992) 2 SCC 241 – Relied upon.
(b) Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 16 – Burden to establish discrimination lies on the party alleging it – In matters of service jurisprudence, not only functional parity but also the mode of recruitment, qualification and the responsibilities attached to the two offices are relevant factors. (Para 15)
(c) Judicial Discipline – Well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary – Therefore, ordinarily courts do not enter upon the task of job evaluation. (Para 17)
1993 Supp (1) SCC 153; 1980 Supp SCC 206 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1. The appellant, a diploma holder, who was initially sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of “Supervisor”, was considered and appointed as a “Draughtsman Grade-I” in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams on 3rd August, 1977. 2. Under the 1978 Rules, there was no provision for promotion of Supervisors as Junior Engineers. It was only by virtue of G.O. 563, Supervisors, who had acquired BE qualification could be promoted as a Junior Engineer. By G.O. No.173 dated 8th April, 1981, the post of Junior Engineer was re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineer and the post of Supervisor was re-designated as Assistant Engineer.
3. The appellant acquired BE Degree on 28th August, 1983. Aggrieved by the denial of the same benefit as was extended to the Supervisors, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. By judgment dated 22nd August, 1986, TTD was directed to consider the appellant’s case for promotion as Junior Engineer, re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineer, if he was otherwise eligible according to the rules.
4. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said direction by the High Court, the appellant made a representation to the authorities concerned, which was rejected on 19th April, 1987 for the reason that he was found to be not eligible for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer under the TTD Service Rules, 1978.
5. Appellant challenged the said order by filing another writ petition. Pursuant to the direction of the Court, the case of the appellant was considered under 1989 Rules and he was appointed, on conversion, as an Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 26th October, 1989, i.e. the date with effect wherefrom the 1989 Rules were enforced vide G.O. Ms. No.1060.
6. Still being dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to him, the appellant preferred yet another writ petition in the High Court which was allowed by the Single Judge.
7. Being aggrieved by the decision and direction of the learned Single Judge, the TTD Management preferred an intra- court appeal to the Division Bench which reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge and consequently dismissed the writ petition.
Finding of the Court :
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J. —
Special leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 8th July, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Cross Writ Appeals No.767 and 846 of 2000. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench while reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge has held that the appellant is eligible for conversion as Assistant Executive Engineer only with effect from 26th October, 1989 and not from an anterior date when he passed the qualifying graduate examination i.e. 28th August, 1983.
3. To understand the controversy involved, a few material facts may be stated, which are as under:
The appellant, a diploma holder, who was initially sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of “Supervisor”, was considered and appointed as a “Draughtsman Grade-I” in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (for short ‘TTD’) on 3rd August, 1977. The post of Draughtsman Grade-I was considered to be lower to the post of “Supervisor”. On 17th March, 1978, by G.O. 563, the State of Andhra Pradesh provided some promotional opportunities to the Supervisors. It was ordered that Supervisors who acquire engineering graduate qualification may be promoted temporarily to the post of Junior Engineers. The TTD Rules, 1978 came into force on 2nd August, 1978. Under these Rules, the only method of recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer was by direct recruitment and, therefore, under the 1978 Rules, there was no provision for promotion of Supervisors as Junior Engineers. It was only by virtue of G.O. 563, Supervisors, who had acquired BE qualification could be promoted as a Junior Engineer. By G.O. No.173 dated 8th April, 1981, the post of Junior Engineer was re-designated as Assistant Executive Engineer and the post of Supervisor was re-designated as Assistant Engineer.
4. The appellant acquired BE Degree on 28th August, 1983. Aggrieved by the denial of the same benefit as was extended to the Supervisors, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. By judgment dated 22nd August, 1986, TTD was directed to consider the appellant’s case for promotion as Junior Engineer, re-designated as Assistant Executive1 Engineer, if he was otherwise eligible according to the rules.
5. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said direction by the High Court, the appellant made a representation to the authorities concerned, which was rejected on 19th April, 1987 for the reason that he was found to be not eligible for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer under the TTD Service Rules, 1978. The appellant challenged the said order by filing another writ petition, which was again disposed of on 30th March, 1990, with a direction to the TTD Management to consider the appellant’s case taking into consideration the promotional channels set out for Category 5 employees in the engineering department, meaning thereby the appellant was to be considered for promotion on the basis of the rules existing as on the date of the order. It may be noted that on 24th October, 1989, TTD Employees Service Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the 1989 Rules’) had come into force. Pursuant to the said direction, the case of the appellant was considered under 1989 Rules and he was appointed, on conversion, as an Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 26th October, 1989, i.e. the date with effect wherefrom the 1989 Rules were enforced vide G.O. Ms. No.1060.
6. Still being dissatisfied with the treatment meted out to him, the appellant preferred yet another writ petition in the High Court. The grievance of the appellant before the High Court, sans unnecessary details, was that:- (i) he was entitled to appointment by conversion as Assistant Executive Engineer from the date next to the last date of his qualifying degree examination viz. 28th August, 1983, (ii) persons similarly situated like him had been appointed by transfer as Assistant Executive Engineers and were accorded the benefit of such promotion w
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.