IMPORTANT POINT
Appointments made contrary to established recruitment rules are illegal and void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

G. NARENDAR, J.

1. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-T.T.D. board (Lead Appeal), Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the Appellants (Companion Appeal), that is, those who have been displaced on account of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and it is pertinent to record at this stage itself that they were all employees of the T.T.D. board in various other cadres and departments of the T.T.D. before being appointed as Librarians/Graduate Librarians and Sri P.V. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the Appellants/Petitioners (Connected Appeal), that is the Petitioners. The appeals are referred to as the lead appeal, companion appeal and the connected appeal, for the sake of brevity and convenience.

2. The facts are not in dispute. The G.O.Rt. No. 1411, Revenue (ENDTS.III) Department, dated 28.11.2019, that was quashed by the learned single judge, was issued by the State Government, pursuant to a request and at the instance of the lead - appellant i.e. the T.T.D. Board [in short ‘the Board’]. The Government order was requested and issued to enable Board to fill up the vacancies in the post of Librarian (06) and Graduate Librarian (06) by way of direct recruitment by transfer i.e. by way of making appointments from amongst staff of the T.T.D. board, who allegedly possessed the requisite academic qualifications stipulated under the recruitment Rules.

3. The paragraphs Nos. 2 & 3 of the Government Order, read as under:

“2. The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams has requested the Government to consider filling up of 6 Librarian and 6 Graduate Librarian posts under recruitment by transfer in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams educational institutions as one-time measure for the academic year 2019-2020 instead of filling them up through the promotion channel.

(Emphasis by this Court)

3. Government after careful examination of the matter hereby accept the proposal of the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and order to filling up of 6 Librarian and 6 Graduate Librarian Posts under recruitment by transfer in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams educational institutions as one-time measure only for the academic year 2019-2020 instead of filling them through the promotion channel.”

4. The Learned Counsel for the appellants in the Companion Appeal submits that, pursuant to the aforesaid G.O. the appellants therein, preferred their applications. That the same were considered and orders of appointment came to be issued. It is also pertinent to note that the same was preceded by removal, rather non-extension of the contracts executed by the Board in favour of the appellants in the Connected Appeal. It is also pertinent to note at this stage itself, that these so called “contract employees” appointed to the posts of Librarian/Graduate Librarians, were so appointed, after they were made to go through the rigor of the selection process which was preceded by a public notification inviting applications. The notification inviting applications from the qualified public was issued on date 10.07.2007. The pleaded facts, disclose that the incumbents, who were subjected to and made to undergo the rigor of the selection process, were fully qualified in all respects, to be appointed to the post of Librarian/Graduate Librarian.

5. The learned Single Judge taking note of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules (C & R Rules) and also after placing reliance on the C & R Rules i.e. framed by the Board in respect of the post of Librarian and Graduate Librarian and after appreciating the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and after examining the same in detail, has been pleased to reject the prayer of the then incumbents, that is, the appellants in the Connected Appeal, i.e. prayers of the contract employees, praying for regularization of their service. While so, rejecting the prayer for regularization, the Court proceeded furt