HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY W.A.No. 320 OF 2009 DATE: 01-03-2011 Between: The Executive Officer, TTD, …….. Appellant and C. Mahadevi and others ……. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY W.A.No. 320 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR, J) This Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is at the instance of the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam, inter alia, seeking to assail the orders of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.18939 of 1995, dated 24-10-2006 allowing the writ, at the instance of the respondents herein who are the NMRs, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein they sought for a Mandamus declaring the action of the appellant herein in treating them as NMRs from the date of their appointments, though they were appointed after going through the process of selection prescribed for the regular appointment, and not extending the benefit of seniority etc., as illegal. Heard both sides. The undisputed facts are that initially the petitioners were appointed as Sweepers in the appellant’s organization on various dates during the period 1979-81 after sponsoring through the employment exchange and after conducting regular interviews. The entire grievance of the respondents centered around is that their services should be regularized from the date of their initial appointment, but they should not be treated as NMRs from any later date. The complaint is that the Government, while regularizing the services of the NMRs, issued G.O.Ms.No.296, dated 19-04-1988 and G.O.Ms.No.344, dated 03-05-1988, and the Board of Trustees, as per the resolution, dated 30-01-1990, limited the benefit of regularization to the date of issuance of the said G.Os instead of giving the same from the dates of their first appointment as NMRs. After hearing both sides, the learned single Judge has taken note of and followed the Judgment passed by another learned single Judge in W.P.No.4096 of 1991, dated 12-11-1997. After extracting the orders passed in the said writ petition, the learned single Judge did not find any reason to come to any different conclusion and allowed the present writ petition and directed the appellant to regularize the services of the respondents herein from the date of their initial appointment and extend all benefits, pecuniary and otherwise, accruing therefrom. During the course of arguments, we also had the benefit of going through the Judgment of another learned single judge in W.P.4096 of 2001, dated 12-11-1997, the extract of which has been referred to in the impugned Judgment. For convenience sake, we again make a reference thereto, which reads as follows: “The proceedings issued by the Executive Officer dated 24.7.79 make it abundantly clear that the petitioners were appointed against the then existing clear vacancies. There is also no dispute between the parties that the petitioners’ names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange Officer and they were subjected to the prescribed selection process. Simply because the proceedings refer to their appointment as NMR Cleaners, it cannot be said that they were appointed under contingency and not on regular basis. There is no need to delve further on this on the basis of the pleadings and the document proceded by the petitioners. In the letter written by the A.E.O (R) to the Executive Officer, a copy of which is produced before this Court as additional material paper at para (3), it is specifically pointed out that all the petitioners were appointed as per the service rules after their names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The A.E.O. has stated that the petitioners ought to have been appointed as cleaners on regular time-scales. In the said letter, it was also proposed that all the petitioners had put in more than 10 years of service in the cadre of cleaners and therefore, they be absorbed as Servers on regular basis by way of promotion. The facts stated by the A.E.O. in the proposal submitted to the Executive Officer are not contested. If this is the factual position, it should be held that the petitioners were appointed as Cleaners on regular basis from the beginning of their service. Therefore, the action of the Deputy Executive Officer (S) in regularizing the services of the petitioners only w.e.f. 10.12.1990 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore a case is made out for interference.” From the above and especially as nothing else has been pointed out to come to any different conclusion or to fall any variance therewith, we are of the view that the appellant has absolutely failed to make out any case to warrant any interference, much less to come to any different conclusions either from the order of the learned single Judge, which is under appeal, or even that of the order of the another learned single Judge in W.P.No.4096 of 2001, which has been allowed. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in this writ appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J Date:01-03-2011 YCR