The court upheld that without clear statutory provisions allowing absorption, deputationists retain no right to permanent positions, reaffirming previous rulings.

1. Divergent opinions expressed by two Division Benches of this Court constrained a learned single Judge to direct this matter to be placed before a Division Bench to resolve the conflict. The Division Bench that heard the matter on 10.10.2007 was of the opinion that it deserved to be considered by a larger Bench. The matter was accordingly listed before this Full Bench.
The petitioner was originally an employee of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). In its service, he ascended the promotional hierarchy and was a Mechanical Foreman when sent on deputation in March, 1990 to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD). His promotion to this post was from the feeder category of Assistant Mechanical Foreman in the APSRTC. While so, in the year 1992, the petitioner requested the TTD to absorb him in its service on regular basis. By Resolution No.723 dated 11.12.1992, the TTD resolved to absorb him in its service by downgrading the post of Depot Manager, Transport Department, TTD, to that of Mechanical Foreman in the cadre of Assistant Executive Officer, duly protecting his pay. The APSRTC consented to this move and the TTD requested the Government of Andhra Pradesh to approve the petitioner's absorption in TTD service. By G.O.Rt.No.722, Revenue (Endt.III) Department, dated 28.05.1993, the Government ratified the action of the TTD in absorbing the petitioner as a Mechanical Foreman in its service. While matters stood thus, the TTD passed Resolution No.888 dated 07/08.12.1994 resolving to repatriate all deputationists absorbed in its service to their parent departments. This resolution was occasioned by the Supreme Court's order dated 17.08.1994 in Civil Appeal No.184 of 1988 confirming the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in R. Suryanarayana Murthy v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, Writ Appeal No.1166 of 1986 dated 09.11.1987. This case involved a Public Relations Officer in the TTD who initially entered its service on deputation and was thereafter absorbed permanently in its service. As the Supreme Court confirmed the view taken by the Division Bench that an employee on deputation to the TTD could not be absorbed in its service as per rules and as there were others in its service who were initially brought on deputation but were thereafter absorbed on a permanent basis, the TTD passed the resolution as aforestated. Pursuant to this resolution, the APSRTC, by its office order dated 12.12.1996, cancelled the deputation of the petitioner and directed him to report for posting orders. Challenging the TTD's Resolution No.888 dated 07/08.12.1994 and the office order dated 12.12.1996 of the APSRTC, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. By interim order dated 30.12.1996, this Court directed status quo to be maintained. By virtue thereof, the petitioner continued in the service of the TTD and retired on 31.07.2007 upon attaining the age of superannuation. He filed W.P.No.26923 of 2009 before this Court for release of his retirement benefits. Pursuant to the interim order dated 15.06.2010 passed therein, the TTD, by proceedings dated 24.09.2010, directed release of his pension and retirement benefits upon his executing an indemnity bond. By proceedings dated 13.05.2011, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner were sanctioned subject to the final orders in the pending cases, including this writ petition.
This, then, is the factual milieu.
The short question that falls for our consideration is whether an employee on deputation to the TTD can be absorbed in its service under the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams' Employees Service Rules , 1989 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 1989') framed vide G.O.Ms.No.1060, Revenue (Endowments - I), dated 24.10.1989. In R. Suryanarayana Murthy , Writ Appeal No.1166 of 1986 dated 09/11/1987, the Division Bench was dealing with t