P. A. CHOUDHARY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case is a Diploma Holder in Radio and television Mechanism. He was selected along with ten others on 26-9-1979 by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams who is the respondent in this case. Later on he was appointed as Helper on 26-9-1979. Three others who had been selected along with him were appointed as Helpers in December, 1979 and four others who were selected alongwith him were appointed in March, 1980. The petitioner s services were terminated by a memo, of the respondent on 6-8-1980. That memo, says that the temporary services of Sri k. Prabhu Singh, helper, Radio and Broad-casting Section, T. T. D. Tirupati are hereby terminated forthwith, as his services are no longer required. It is this order which has been challenged in this writ petition.

( 2 ) FROM the perusal of the above facts, it appears to be clear that while the others who were appointed subsequent to the petitioner as Helpers were being continued as Helpers by the Tirumala-Tirupati Devasthanams, the petitioner alone was singled out and thrown out of his job. No charges were brought against the petitioner. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner s assertions that he was performing his duties satisfactorily need not be gone into. The respondent claimed to have terminated the services of the petitioner in terms of his appointment order which appears to have given an unbridled powef to terminate the services of the petitioner-employee for any reason or no reason at all. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner s services are liable to be terminated at any time without "assigning any reasons and that the motive for the termination is irrelevant. I must say that this attitude of the Tirumala-Tirupathi Devasthanams cannot be justified either by jurisprudence or the theology. That one human being, exercising the powers of an inanimate body like Tirumala-Tirupathi Devasthanams, can exercise this unbridled power over the fate and destiny of another human being, cannot be accepted either by the Constitution or by God. The Tirumala-Tirupathi devasthanams is a statutory body. It is not a private individual. The petitioner is in public employment under that statutory body. Without reason, in fact without sufficient reason, the petitioner s services cannot be terminated by a statutory body like Tirumala-Tirupathi Devasthanums. The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams owes its existence to the statute and must therefore be taken to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is accordingly bound by the limitations which Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution impose upon the exercise of power by the State authorities in the matter of public employment.

( 3 ) IN District Manager A. P. S. R. T. C. vs. Labour Court, AIR 1980 A. P. page 132 writing for thefull Bench of this Court I held that right to public employment is a new form of property and it will be a great source of living and happiness and is therefore entitled to protection under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) IN State of Maharathtra vs. Chandrabhan, AIR 19s3 S. C. page 803 the Supreme Court observed, referring to the above observations of mine, thus :"i agree with this view of the learned Judge regarding public employment being property of the nation which had to be shared equally subject of course to the qualification necessary for holding the office or post. I wish to add that it should not be monopolised by any particular section of the people of this country in the name of efficiency, though efficiency cannot altogether be ignored. "

( 5 ) IN D. P. Seshachalam vs. A. S. College of India, Hyderabad, 1984-1-Labour and Industrial cases, p. 875. I have held that the services of a teacher cannot lawfully be terminated under the terms and conditions of his appointment in the contract of employment by giving three months notice. The reason I gave for coning to that conclusion was that those terms

Click Here to Read the rest of this document