THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1064 OF 2011 DATED:02.12.2011 Between: Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Rep. by its Executive Officer Tirumala and another … Appellants And Dr. T. Revathi Reddy … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1064 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) The appellants are aggrieved by an order dt.9.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.24807 of 2011. 2. The respondent joined the service of the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) in October, 2007 as a Medical Officer. It appears that the respondent was engaged through a contractor called ‘S.S. Services’ on outsourcing basis. 3. During the course of employment with the TTD on outsourcing basis, the respondent was given her duties by the TTD through the oﬃce note dt.9.5.2008. We also ﬁnd from the record that proceedings were issued by the TTD on 19.5.2008 whereby the respondent was sent for training to Chennai and Bangalore to study good manufacturing practices to update the knowledge in the pharmacies run and managed by the TTD. 4. It has also been brought to our notice that instructions were issued directly by the TTD to the respondent on 28.5.2008 through an Urgent Note to maintain registers and again through a Memo dt.2.6.2008 to appear before the Executive Oﬃcer. These documents have been placed on record only for the purpose of showing that even though the respondent may have been engaged on an outsourcing basis by S.S. Services, eﬀective control over her services was that of the TTD. 5. The TTD issued a notiﬁcation dt.9.5.2011 inviting applications from eligible and interested candidates for the post of Medical Oﬃcer (Ayurveda) to work in S.V. Ayurvedic Hospital, Tirupati. The respondent applied for that post and claimed the beneﬁt of G.O. Ms. No.90, dt.23.3.2005 which provides for weightage upto 45 marks (out of 100) to Medical Officers working on contract basis. 6. Since the respondent was not given the weightage that she claimed, she ﬁled a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal and that is how the matter is now before us. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellants/TTD that in terms of G.O. Ms. No.90 dt.23.3.2005 the weightage is given to only those Medical Oﬃcers who are working on a contract basis. This is interpreted to mean that there must be a direct contract between the employer and the employee. We do not ﬁnd any such limitation and the expression ‘working on a contract basis’ is wide enough to include working on a contract basis through a method of outsourcing. 8. That apart, we ﬁnd from the documents that we have referred to above that the eﬀective control over the services of the respondent was with the TTD although, nominally she may have been engaged through the service of a contractor, i.e., S.S. Services. We say this because, as we have mentioned above, it is the TTD which had identiﬁed the duties and responsibilities of the respondent and it is the TTD which had decided to send her to Chennai and Bangalore for training. This could not have happened if there was no direct relationship between the TTD and the respondent. The engagement of the respondent through the services of an outsourcing agency is now made out to be some sort of a camouflage. We are not saying that the procedure was created to deny the beneﬁt of weightage to the respondent, but it is now being used to deny her the weightage. 9. We are of the opinion that given the circumstances of the case and nature of the employment of the respondent with the TTD, she is entitled to the beneﬁt of weightage prescribed in G.O. Ms. No.90, dt.23.5.2005 as held by the learned Single Judge. We may note in this context that the respondent has been working with the TTD for the last four years and there does not appear to be any complaint with regard to her services and we are of the opinion that it would not be proper to deny her the beneﬁt of four years of her service. 10. There is no merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous application is also dismissed. __________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 02-12-2011 bnr