IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 191 of 2009 Between: 1 P.N. Prasanna Narayana S/o. Pratap Narayanan R/o. oom No. 3, E Block, BIRRD Trust Hospital, TTD , Tirupathi. 2 V. Madhu S/o. Late V. Chengaiah R/o. D.No. 43 B Type Quarters Dr Mahal Road, Govinda Raju Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 M. Neeraja D/o. Sri M. Chengala Rayulu R/o. 6-8-942, NGO's Colony, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4 N.R. Parvathi D/o. N.E. Raja Ram R/o. 20-3-123/A-2 1st Floor, Vishnu Clinic, Rayalavari Street, Near Leela Mahal, Tirupathi, 5 K. Balasaraswathy D/o. Sri K. Ramachandra Naidu R/o. 19-12-455, Bairagipatteda, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanam Rep. by its Executive Officer. 3 Balaji Institute of Surgery Research & Rehabilitation for the Disabled (BIRRD) (Trust) Rep. by its Director , Tirupathi. 4 K. Veera Raghavulu S?o. K. Subrahmanyam BIRDS Hopsital, Tirupathi. 5 S. Rajendran S/o. K. Swamynathan BIRDS Hopsital, Tirupathi, R/o. B Type Quarters, 29 KT Quarter TTD, Tirupathi. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the amendment made in SL.No. 29 in the table under hearing No. III of the Annexure-II to the TTD Employees Service Rules 1989 issued in G.O.ms.No. 1356 Revenue (Endowments III) Department dt. 25-11-2008 providing a channel for the promotion to the post of Physiotherapist from the feeder category of Physiotherapist without providing the minimum Education qualification such as BPT & MPT as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and discriminatory, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the various recommendations and standard prescribed by various Universities IAP and parliamentary etc. and standard prescribed by various Universities, IAP and Parliamentary etc., and consequently struck down the amendment made to the service regulations in G.O.Ms.No. 1356 Revenue (Endowments III) Department dt. 25-11-2008 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 191 of 2009 ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Petitioners challenge the amendment made to the TTD Employees Service Rules, 1989 issued in G.O.Ms.No.1356 dated 25.11.2008 providing promotion channel to the post of Physiotherapist from the feeder category of Assistant Physiotherapist without a minimum qualification such as BPT & MPT as illegal and consequently, to struck down the said amendment. Petitioners, five in number, claim to possess the Degree in Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) and are working on temporary basis in the third respondent-Institution. Petitioners state that they made representation dated 01.03.2008 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider their cases for absorption into the post of Physiotherapist since they possess requisite qualification. The grievance of the petitioners is that while respondent Nos.4 and 5 did not possess the minimum prescribed qualification to hold the post of Physiotherapist, the impugned G.O. was issued requiring them to have not less than five years of service and possession of Bachelor degree from any recgonised University and a certificate of Physiotherapy from any recognized institution to be promoted to the cadre of Physiotherapist from Assistant Physiotherapist. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent stating that as per the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, there was no promotional channel to the post of Physiotherapist from the post of Assistant Physiotherapist and the vacant posts would be filled only by direct recruitment. It is stated that the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Physiotherapist is a pass in S.S.C. or its equivalent examination and that he must have undergone training in the field of Physiotherapy for not less than 9 months from any recognised University. It is further stated that the TTD Board, vide its resolution dated 27.12.2007, amended the TTDs Service Rules requiring to have not less than five years of service as Assistant Physiotherapist, possession of a Bachelor Degree of any recognized University and a certificate of Physiotherapy from any recognized institution to be promoted to the post of Physiotherapist from Assistant Physiotherapist. It is stated that the Government issued preliminary notification, vide G.O.Ms.No.870, dated 18.07.2008, and as no objections were received, it was confirmed by the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1356, dated 25.11.2008. Counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.2-TTD stating that the Service Rules were amended since respondent Nos.4 and 5 were working continuously as Assistant Physiotherapists without any promotion for the last 14 and 20 years and they were promoted vide proceedings dated 24.02.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that while the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Physiotherapist is a pass in S.S.C. or its equivalent examination and must have undergone training in the field of Physiotherapy for not less than 9 months from any recognized University, the requisite qualification to the post of Physiotherapist is BPT degree and whereas there was no promotional avenues to the post of Physiotherapist from the post of Assistant Physiotherapist and the recruitment was only by direct. He further contends that the amendment to the TTDs Service Rules in respect of the post of Physiotherapist was issued only to facilitate respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are working in the feeder category. He contends that since the third respondent-Institution is a research and training institute for various courses like B.P.T. and M.P.T., possession of requisite educational qualifications to discharge their duties as doctors as well as to train the students is necessary and, therefore, amendment to the service rules is illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments in V.Srinivasa Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1], Union Public Service Commission v. Sukanta Kar[2], Krishnaiah v. Government of A.P.[3] and Bar Council of India v. Board of Mang.[4]. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that on the basis of the representation of respondents Nos.4 and 5 that they have put in 20 and 14 years of service respectively as Assistant Physiotherapists, the TTD resolved to create promotional channel to the post of Physiotherapist. Before making amendment, the respondents invited objections and no objections were received from any person objecting to the proposed amendment. Ultimately, the Government though it fit to amend the rule so as to provide promotional channel/promotional avenues to the inservice candidates. The Rule making authority having considered the representation made by respondent Nos.4 and 5 and so as to provide promotional avenues to the persons, who are working since long time, recommended to provide promotion to the post of Physiotherapist from Assistant Physiotherapist. However, the method of direct recruitment was not eliminated to the post of Physiotherapist and a ratio of 30:70 was fixed for direct recruitment and promotees respectively by the impugned G.O. It is settled proposition of law that the Courts cannot prescribe the qualification for a particular post and it is for the rule making authority to prescribe the qualifications to meet the exigencies of work. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any bearing to the facts of this case. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt:01.06.2009 usd [1] 2009(2) ALT 478(DB) [2]2007(3) SLR 732 [3] 2007(2) ALD 89 [4] 2007(1) SLR 427