IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 405 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 19.11.2003 in WP NO. 15078 of 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Trust Board, Rep. By its Executive Officer & Member Secretary, Tirupathi, Chittoor District and another ..... APPELLANTS AND B.Krishna Kumari and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) T h e Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Chittoor District (for brevity ‘the TTD’) is in appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2003 passed by a learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 15078 of 2003. The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein challenging the proceedings of the TTD in Roc. No.E2/32775/2002 dated 5.5.2003, whereby her services were terminated with immediate effect. The first respondent was earlier taken into service pursuant to the appellate order dated 1.5.1998 passed by the TTD Board under Sec. 120 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowment Act, 1987 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1987’). Thereafter, the Board suo motu reopened the said case; reviewed its earlier order and terminated the services of the first respondent under the impugned proceedings dated 5.5.2003. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the Board while exercising quasi judicial power, had no such authority to review its earlier order in the absence of an enabling provision; and accordingly set aside the impugned proceedings dated 5.5.2003 and allowed the writ petition. Hence, this Appeal. It is however to be noticed that initially when the first respondent was directed to be appointed as a Junior Assistant by virtue of the interim orders of this court in the earlier round of litigation in WP No. 7927 of 1992 and the writ petition was thereafter allowed on 17.11.1994 in terms of the interim order, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court by the TTD in a batch of Civil Appeals, which was allowed by the Supreme Court on 26.3.1996, thereby setting aside the judgment dated 17.11.1994 in W.P.No. 7927 of 1992. It was after the order was passed by the Supreme Court that the first respondent filed an appeal before the TTD Board under Sec. 120 of the Act of 1987. A reading of the appellate order dated 1.5.1998 passed by the Board reflects that though the Board was aware of the order passed by the Supreme Court, it took a lenient view in the matter and directed appointment of the first respondent clarifying that the said order should not be treated as a precedent. When this order came to the notice of this court in a subsequent writ petition, W.P. No. 16252 of 1994, this court took a serious view of the Board Resolution dated 1.5.1998 allowing the appeal of the first respondent. It was due to these observations by this court that the TTD reopened the matter and passed the impugned proceedings dated 5.5.2003. It is no doubt true that the TTD Board in exercise of the quasi judicial powers conferred by Section 120 of the Act of 1987, could not have reviewed its earlier order unless such specific power was given to it under the statute. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, there was no such power vested in the TTD Board. However, it is equally well established that this court would not set aside an illegal order if the effect of the same is the restoration of another illegal order (Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of A.P.[1]). In the present case, the effect of setting aside the review order dated 5.5.2003 would be the revival of the appellate order dated 1.5.1998, which was in the teeth of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the TTD did not have the power to review its earlier order, the impugned order dated 5.5.2003, ought not to have been set aside in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is however to be noticed that had the TTD not passed the illegal order on 1.5.1998, the first respondent would not have been continued in service; would not have exceeded the age bar and would have been eligible for employment elsewhere. The fact also remains that the first respondent served the TTD for about nine years in total and owing to the present order, she would be denied entitlement for appointment not only in the TTD but also elsewhere, as she is now beyond the permissible age limit to seek employment afresh. In the circumstances, keeping in view the injustice done to the first respondent owing to the varying stands of the TTD at different points of time, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case where the TTD Board should consider the candidature of the first respondent, as a special case for appointment afresh in any suitable post as per her eligibility. Needless to state such appointment would not entitle the first respondent to claim any benefits basing on her past service. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed subject to the above observation. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar November 26, 2009 MAS. [1] AIR 1966 S.C. 828