THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24707 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are Ex-servicemen. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati, the 1st respondent herein, issued notification dated 21-07-2011, proposing to appoint the Security Guards from the category of Ex-servicemen. It was mentioned that the Ex-servicemen shall be from Combatant Forces of Infantry or Artillery Sections, with a minimum service of five years. The petitioners are not from the divisions, referred to above. They feel aggrieved by the condition imposed by the Devasthanam. According to the petitioners, there cannot be any further classification among the Ex-servicemen, in the context of appointment as Security Guards. It is also stated that the Zilla Sainik Board, the 2nd respondent, is under obligation to ensure that all Ex-servicemen, irrespective of the divisions in which they work, must be made eligible. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. The notification was issued for selection and appointment of Security Guards. An incumbent selected as Security Guard is required to handle arms and to possess skills, to meet the complex situations. Persons who have worked in Artillery divisions are known for their skills, in meeting such situations. It is true that an Ex-serviceman is the one, who has retired from the Armed Forces, irrespective of the nature of functions he has discharged, while in service. However, the freedom of an employer to stipulate the qualifications for the post, which he proposes to fill; cannot be taken away. The conditions imposed by the respondents cannot be said to be unreasonable. A person, who retired as a Driver from the army, would also answer the description of Ex-serviceman. However, his capabilities to handle the arms and to exhibit combatant skills would almost be meagre. Further, no Ex-serviceman, or for that matter, any citizen, can insist that an employer must consider his case, irrespective of the job requirement. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.05-09-2011. KO