Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 928
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, P.S.MISHRA
C.Balaiah - Appellant
Versus
Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.Tirupathi,rep.by its Executive Officer - Respondent
Decided On : 12-07-95
The proviso to Rule 9 of the TTD Service Rules, which allowed for the appointment of persons with higher qualifications from other departments by transfer, was applicable in the instant case as there were no other candidates in the feeder category with the requisite qualifications and service for the purpose of appointment to the category of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
Headnote:
TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS - OFFICE HOLDERS AND SERVANTS (OTHER THAN HEREDITARY OFFICE HOLDERS) RECRUITMENT RULES - RULE 9 - PROVISO - APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) - ELIGIBILITY - LINE INSPECTORS - CONTINUITY OF SERVICE - REGULARISATION OF SERVICE - WORK CHARGED ESTABLISHMENT - APPOINTMENT BY TRANSFER - SENIORITY - WRIT JURISDICTION - DISCRETION OF THE COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, who were working as Line Inspectors in the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD), sought a direction to the respondents to appoint them as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in accordance with the TTD Service Rules. The appellants contended that they had been working as Line Inspectors for more than five years and were eligible for promotion. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the appellants were not eligible for promotion as they had not completed five years of regular service as Line Inspectors.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appellants were not eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) as they had not completed five years of regular service as Line Inspectors. The Court further held that the proviso to Rule 9 of the TTD Service Rules, which allowed for the appointment of persons with higher qualifications from other departments by transfer, was applicable in the instant case as there were no other candidates in the feeder category with the requisite qualifications and service for the purpose of appointment to the category of Assistant Engineer (Electrical).
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants were eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) under the TTD Service Rules? 2. Whether the proviso to Rule 9 of the TTD Service Rules was applicable in the instant case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the appellants were not eligible for promotion as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) as they had not completed five years of regular service as Line Inspectors. The Court relied on the TTD Service Rules, which required a minimum qualification of a diploma in the trade of electricity and a qualifying period of service of five years for appointment on promotion as Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer. 2. The Court held that the proviso to Rule 9 of the TTD Service Rules was applicable in the instant case as there were no other candidates in the feeder category with the requisite qualifications and service for the purpose of appointment to the category of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). The Court noted that the proviso was intended to protect the interests of the Line Inspectors who may not have any other avenue of promotion but undoubtedly such Line Inspectors who are properly and regularly recruited.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.
( 1 ) THESE appeals under Clause 15 of thy Letters Patent of the Court have arisen from a common Judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 4967 and 10492 of 1992 being proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petitioner - appellants (in W. A. No. 1202 of 1995) have sought for a direction to the respondents in the writ petition to appoint them as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) in accordance with Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanarms Service rules, since they have been working as Line Inspectors arid were eligibly for such appointment by promotion. Writ petitioner - appellants (in Writ Appeal no. 1203 of 1995) have sought for an appropriate Writ to declare G. O. Ms. No. 375, Revenue (End. III) Department, dated 26-4-1994, as illegal and unconstitutional and accordingly to set aside the consequential order in Roc, no. TLI/38679/92, dated 4-5-1994, issued by the second respondent appointing the third respondent in the writ petition as Assistant Engineer (Electrical ).
( 2 ) WRIT Petitioner-appellants, it is not in dispute, were appointed as NMRs since 1986-87. They fulfilled the requisite qualifications and worked in the work charged establishment. According to them, they possessed /possess the qualifying period of five years of service as Line Inspectors, as ever since their appointment, they have been working as Line Inspectors. They first joined tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanarns (for short devasthanam service as skilled work Inspectors and rendered service for more than five years. They were, however, treated as casual workmen on the consolidated pay/daily wages by the T. T. D, They were absorbed in the year 1984 as NMRs/casual labour pursuant to G. O. Ms. No. 390, Revenue (End. III) Department, dated 6-5-1991 and absorbed in the regular service with effect from 1-8-1991 in the time scale of pay of Rs. 810 - 1420 in the cadre of Work Inspectors (Elec.) called Line inspectors because of the nature of their work. Workmen on the civil side, who were similarly appointed, were absorbed and regularised as Work Inspectors (Civil) in the same scale of pay. The regularised Work Inspectors (Civil) possessing LCE/lme qualifications were appointed as Draughtsman Grade- ii, the next higher post by Memo dated 27-9-1991 treating their past service as that in regular work charged establishment as per the provision in the Tirumala tirupathi Devasthanarns Employees Service Rules, issued in G. O. Ms. No. 1060, revenue (End. I) Department, dated 24-10-1989. Devasthanam, however, took no steps to appoint the writ petitioners - appellants as Assistant Engineers (Electrical), though there were several vacancies. They (writ petitioners - appellants) filed Writ Petition No. 15506 of 1991 in this Court for issuing a Writ directing the respondents to extend the benefit of appointment to them. The said writ petition was disposed of with the observation that they (petitioners - appellants) could move the Devasthanam for the grant of the relief which they were seeking in the writ petition. After the disposal of the writ petition, petitioners-appellants made a representation to the Devasthanam on 11-2-1992 to consider their claim for appointment as Assistant Engineers (Electrical ). The devasthanam - first respondent, however, it is alleged, without considering their claim for appointment by promotion, asked them to appear in a written examination to be held on 10-4-1992 for the recruitment to the post of Assistant engineer (Electrical ).
( 3 ) IT appears a petition to review the order in Writ Petition No. 4697 of 1992 was also made and other applications were filed for one or the other reason. When persons, who were not holding the post of Line Inspectors but were having the qualifications for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and working from before in other departments of the Devasthanam, were appointed, Writ Petition No. 10492 of 1994 was filed. All applications in respect of the appointment of Assistant Engineers and
