Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.S.M.QUADRI
K.Srinivasulu Setty - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-06-91
SERVICE LAW - APPOINTMENT - PERMANENT APPOINTMENT - TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT - REPATRIATION - VALIDITY - WRIT PETITION - LACHES - VOID ORDER - VOIDABLE ORDER - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - T. T. D. - ANNAMACHARYA PROJECT - DIRECTOR - POST OF DIRECTOR - APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR - RESOLUTION OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE - COMMUNICATION OF RESOLUTION - LEGAL RIGHT - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lecturer in Telugu, was deputed to work in the Annamacharya Project, a project launched by Tirumala-Tirupati Devasthanams (T. T. D.) for unearthing hundreds of Annamacharya's compositions. In 1981, the Management Committee of T. T. D. resolved to create a permanent post of Director for the project and redesignate the post of Special Officer as Director. The petitioner was appointed as Director temporarily in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-50-1350-60-1950. In 1982, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department as Lecturer in Telugu due to financial irregularities in the project. He challenged the order of repatriation in a writ petition, which was later withdrawn after the order of suspension was revoked. In 1984, the petitioner was brought back to the project as Officer-in-charge. In 1986, the Government of Andhra Pradesh accorded permission to create the post of Programme Coordinator and appointed the 3rd respondent to the said post. The petitioner was repatriated to his parent department. In 1989, the Management Committee of T. T. D. resolved to promote the 3rd respondent as Director of the project. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that he would be deemed to be holding the post of Director, Annamacharya Project, and that the respondents could not consider the appointment of the 3rd respondent to the post of Director. The 3rd respondent filed a writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to implement the resolution and promote him as Director of the project.
Finding of the Court:
1. The petitioner's appointment as Director, Annamacharya Project was purely temporary as is evident from the order of the Special Officer. 2. The repatriation of the petitioner for the irregularities committed is valid. 3. The petitioner, by accepting the order of repatriation and acting upon it, is estopped from challenging the validity of the same. 4. The petitioner, by his conduct in not challenging the order for about eight years, is deemed to have waived any cause of action available to him against the said order. 5. The ad hoc rules issued by the Government for the post of Director are not mala fide and are not liable to be quashed. 6. The Resolution No. 304 dated 22-7-1989 appointing the 3rd respondent as Director, Annamacharya Project is irregular and void as there is no vacant post of Director to be filled up by the 3rd respondent. 7. The 3rd respondent is not entitled to a direction to implement the said resolution and allow him to work as Director, Annamacharya Project.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the declaration that (a) he was appointed permanently as Director, Annamacharya Project and he would be deemed to be holding the said post without any break with all attendant benefits of seniority, and (b) respondents 1 and 2 cannot in law consider the appointment of the 3rd respondent to the post of Director, Annamacharya Project. 2. Whether the 3rd respondent is entitled to a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to implement Resolution No. 304, dated 22-7-1989 and give him posting as Director of Annamacharya Project.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The resolution of the Management Committee did not appoint the petitioner as Director on a permanent basis. The order issued by the Executive Officer appointing the petitioner as Director temporarily is in accord with the resolution and is not inconsistent thereto. 2. The petitioner's appointment as Director was temporary and he was repatriated to his parent department as Lecturer in Telugu due to financial irregularities in the project. The petitioner accepted the order of repatriation and acted upon it for over 8 years without demur. The order of repatriation is not void and cannot be ignored in these proceedings collaterally. 3. The resolution promoting the 3rd respondent as Director of the project was not communicated to him and, therefore, he acquires no legal right under it which can be enforced by the High Court by issuing a Writ of Mandamus.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions are dismissed.
( 1 ) SOUTH India has the distinction of having the most revered and worshipped temple of Lord Venkateswara of great antiquity on the seven hills of Tirumala-Tirupati devasthanams. Persons professing Hindu faith, belonging to different walks of life saints, writers, businessmen, poets, politicians and others are devotees of this temple. Many writers have written in prose and poetry in praise of Lord Venkateswara. Among them was a great saint and poet Annamacharya who had written Sankeerthanas in telugu language, which were inscribed on palm leaves, copper plates, etc. But, for different reasons, the public did not have the advantage of his invaluable works. Tirumala-Tirupati Devasthanams (T. T. D) launched a project named "annamacharya project" for purposes of unearthing hundreds of his compositions said to have been inscribed on the palm leaves, copper plates etc. One K. Srinivasulu Setly who was appointed in the T. T. D. service as tutor in Telugu language (Sri Venkateswara Arts college) and was later promoted as Lecturer in Telugu on 5-8-1968, was deputed to work in this Project at Tanjore Saraswathi Mahal Library. As for the qualification of srinivasulu Setty, it is stated that he took his degree in higher class in 1963, acquired post-graduate Diploma in Linguistics from Venkateswara University and had completed his doctorate in Annamacharya language, but had to submit his thesis.
( 2 ) ON 6-12-1978 Srinivasulu Setty was deputed to work as Special Officer of annamacharya Project work duly assigning his duties. On 22-9-81 in Resolution No. 450 the Management Committee of T. T. D. expressed that it would be unfair to keep srinivasulu Setty on deputation, who had been associated with Annamacharya work and activities and that if he was willing the Management might bring him over to the project on permanent basis offering sufficient incentives, and proposed to have permanent post of Special Officer redesignated as director with a scale of pay of Rs. 1200-50-1350- 60-1950. It was resolved to create a Director s post as proposed and the proposal to appoint Srinivasulu Sctty in the said scale of pay was approved. On the basis of the said resolution the Executive Officer of the T. T. D. issued Proceedings Roc. No. D7/36892/ 81, dated 1-10-1981 appointing Srinivasulu Setty temporarily as Director, Annamacharya project in the said scale. Srinivasulu Setty claims that though the order stated that he was appointed temporarily as Director, his appointment was on permanent basis. On 1 -7-1982 one M. Mohan was appointed as Research Assistant on a consolidated pay of rs. 250/- which was subsequently increased to Rs. 600/. However, by proceedings issued by the Executive Officer on 29-11-1982 Srinivasulu Sctty was sent back to the post of Lecturer in Telugu on certain allegations. Later, on 31-3-1983 he was placed under suspension. Srinivasulu Setty challenged the order of suspension in Writ Petition no. 2849 of 1983 in the Court. It was subsequently withdrawn on revocation of the suspension. The said M. Mohan was appointed as programme Co-ordinator in annamacharya Project in the scale of pay of Rs. 700-1600 by Resolution No. 179, dated 23-7-1984. It is alleged by Srinivasulu Setty that the said M. Mohan got the said resolution -passed by approaching the then Chief Minister Sri N. T. Rama Rao and by bringing his influence on the management committee. However, Srinivasulu Setty was brought back as Officer in-charge of Annamacharya Project on 7-8-1984. The government of Andhra Pradesh in G. O. Ms. No. 612, Revenue (Endowments. III) department, dated 29-5-1986 accorded permission to create the post of Programme coordinator and for appointing M. Mohan to the said post. In the said G. O. it was directed that Srinivasulu Setty should be repatriated to his parent department. For filling up the post of Director, draft rules were published by the Government It is alleged by srinivasulu Setty that the draft rules were so framed as
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
