THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.69 of 2011 March 25, 2011 Between: Dr.A.Raghunadha Reddy (died) Represented by his legal representatives Smt.A.Rajamma, W/o.late Dr.A.Raghunadha Reddy And another ... Appellants And Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati represented by its Executive Officer And others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.69 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.83 of 2005 dated 21.9.2010 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. By the said judgment, the first appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.300 of 1999 dated 18.10.2005 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The necessary fact of the matter for disposal of the second appeal is as follows. Dr.A.Raghunadha Reddy filed the suit being O.S.No.300 of 1999 for declaration that he is entitled for promotion to the post of Professor (Superintendent category) of 30 bedded Ayurvedic Hospital of Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams (TTD). He alleged that he joined Hospital as Junior Medical Officer (Ayurveda) in the dispensary on 07.5.1979. In February 1984 he was promoted as Senior Medical Officer/Assistant Professor. After establishment of the Hospital in 1985, he applied for being posted as Superintendent on temporary basis as per the proceedings of TTD. He was informed that his request would be considered, after establishment of Ayurvedic College by the Government, but even after he became eligible for being posted as Superintendent on regular basis, it was not considered. He further alleged that when TTD appointed Dr.S.P.Dikshit as Principal of S.V.Ayurvedic College, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.15273 of 1989 and that as Dr.Dikshit retired on attaining the age of superannuation, the High Court directed TTD to consider the representation for the purpose of giving monetary benefit. The plaintiff then submitted a representation on 27.4.1997 and TTD rejected the claim by proceedings dated 16.9.1997. He then filed appeal to the Board of Trustees of TTD, which was also rejected on 29.11.1997. The plaintiff then submitted an appeal to the Government, the third defendant, who did not pass any order. The plaintiff contended that he is eligible and entitled to be promoted as Professor from 18.4.1985 till 06.2.1987 on temporary basis and thereafter on regular basis. Even before the defendants could file written statement, the plaintiff died and his wife, son and daughter came on record as his legal representatives. The TTD filed written statement opposing the suit. It was pleaded that post of Superintendent was not filled by the date of filing the written statement, that by 1987 the College and Hospital were not constructed. TTD also contended that the cause of action does not survive as the relief claimed by the deceased first plaintiff is personal and that the suit is barred by limitation and res judicata. Based on the pleadings, the Court below framed five issues. On 19.9.2001, three additional issues were framed. On behalf of the plaintiffs, wife of the original plaintiff gave evidence as P.W.1. Exs.A1 to A16 were marked. These exhibits are mainly copies of proceedings of TTD and office copies of petitions and representations made by late Dr.Raghunadha Reddy. On behalf of the defendants, the Senior Assistant in Education Section of TTD Administrative Office gave evidence as D.W.1. Considering the evidence, the trial Court recorded a finding that the suit is not barred by limitation and is not hit by res judicata. However, the relief sought for was denied holding that Dr.Raghunadha Reddy did not possess required qualifications to be eligible to the post of Professor and, therefore, no monetary benefit can be claimed by his legal heirs. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The plaintiffs were also unsuccessful before the first appellate Court, which after reappreciating the evidence gave the same conclusion that Dr.Raghunadha Reddy was not having requisite qualifications. The Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court erred in relying on the Rules promulgated vide G.O.Ms.No.129, Medical and Health Department, dated 27.2.1981 (Ex.A15), which seized to be operative in view of subsequent G.O.Ms.No.265, dated 26.5.1994. He would urge that the Courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that the deceased first plaintiff had no requisite qualifications. He contends that having accepted the appeal, TTD could not have reviewed its decision contrary to Section 120(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act). An employee of TTD working, at the relevant time, as Senior Medical Officer requested to be promoted to the post of Professor in Ayurvedic Hospital or to the equivalent post in the cadre of Superintendent in the time scale of ` 1,150 – 50 – 1,700. Therefore the question whether such an employee was eligible to be promoted is relevant and goes to the root of the matter. As found by the first appellate Court, to be promoted to the post of Superintendent a person must possess degree/diploma in Ayuvedic medicine from any recognized Institution, must have to be in at least three years of service as Senior Vaid/Lecturer besides putting in at least three years of teaching experience. It was found that P.W.1 admitted in her cross- examination that her husband had no teaching experience and that the deceased first plaintiff never acted as Senior Vaid/ Lecturer. Based on this admission, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that claim for promotion cannot be allowed in the suit. It is a question of fact and does not warrant any interference. The plea based on Section 120 of the Act is also misconceived. Even according to the plaintiffs, the appeal made to the Board of Trustees of TTD was referred to TTD Employees Welfare Committee, which recommended promotion. Allegedly the appeal was accepted vide Resolution No.1004, dated 4/5 January, 1995 to accept recommendations of the TTD Welfare Committee. But subsequently an order was issued on 29.11.1997 rejecting the claim. This does not amount to review. Unless and until an order is communicated to the aggrieved person, mere resolution cannot confer any benefit. The deceased, first plaintiff, also appears to have accepted the position. Therefore he preferred appeal to the Government against the rejection order dated 29.11.1997 (Ex.A12). The issues substantially were in the realm of fact finding and there is no substantial question of law that would arise for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) March 25, 2011 YS