IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1242 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/11/2007 in WP NO : 17510 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Rep by its Executive Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2 The Director, S.V.Dairy Form, T.T.Devasthanams, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 P.Anandan, S/o. P.Bheemaiah, R/o. 14-71(2), Padmavati nagar, Tirupati. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Revenue (Endts-III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO(SC FOR TTD) Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.SURYAPRAKASH RAO The Division Bench of this Full text of Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1242 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 13-11-2007 passed by the learned single Judge of this court in WP.No.17510 of 2006, whereby the learned single Judge disposed of the said writ petition holding that the first respondent herein is entitled to be treated on par with others, who were appointed as NMRs during the period from 01-1-1979 to 31-3-1984 for regularization of the services and directed the appellants herein to regularize the services of the first respondent in the cadre of Typist-cum-LDC w.e.f. 19-4-1988 and reckon his seniority in the said cadre from 19-4-1988 and extend all other benefits and the learned single Judge also made clear that the first respondent is not entitled to any monetary benefit from 19-4-1988 to 10-4-1992. Questioning the same, the present writ appeal is filed by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam and the Director of S.V.Dairy Form, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Tirupati. 2. The writ petition was filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner-first respondent as LD Typist/LDC on regular basis w.e.f. 19-4-1988 and confer all benefits attached to the post including promotion and suitable place in the seniority list of LD Typist/LDC in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams including promotion etc. 3. In the writ petition it is stated that during 1982-83 there was ban on regular recruitment of posts in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. Therefore, the Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams issued instructions directing all the Departments to make appointments only on NMR/casual basis whenever necessary. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as NMR on 02-3-1983 and was allotted to SV Farms, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Tirupati. At the time of joining the first respondent was B.Com., degree holder with qualifications, English Typewriting Higher Grade and Telugu Typwriting Lower Grade. Thereafter, the first respondent acquired higher qualifications; namely, M.A. (Socialogy), M.A. (English), B.Ed., P.G. Diploma in IRPM, Temple Culture, Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade. The first respondent also passed Endowment Department Tests-I and II, Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers, Part-I and II and Accounts Test for Executive Officer. While working as NMR, his services were utilized from the initial stage as a typist by the SV Forms Departments in view of his possessing qualifications of typist. Though the department recommended for his absorption in the category of Typist/LDC, his services were regularized mistakenly as mazdoor by the Government. Even though his services were regularized in 1998 as mazdoor his services were utilized as Typist only by Dairy Farm authorities. Since 1992, the services of several NMRs in TTD were converted to the posts of LDCs/typists and their services were regularized. Even though his services were regularized with effect from 1988, the appellants-respondents had not passed order converting him to the post of typist. 4. While things stood thus, in the year 1988, on the proposals sent by the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued GO.Ms.No.296, Revenue (Endts.III) Department, dated 19-4-1988 whereunder the persons recruited in different posts in various Departments in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthnams on NMR basis/consolidated pay basis/casual labour basis etc., during the period from 01-1-1979 to 31-3-1984 were given relaxation of mode of employment and rule of reservation in the analogy of the orders issued during the year 1981 and Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams was directed to regularize the services of the persons, who were recruited during the said period from 01-1-1979 to 31-3-1984. Though the services of the persons, who were appointed along with the first respondent as NMR/consolidated pay basis and working in various Departments were regularized from the date of issuance of the GO i.e., 19-4-1988, the services of the first respondent were not regularized from 19-4-1988 on par with others, in spite of there being a recommendation from the Departmental Head. However, at last, the services of the first respondent were regularized with effect from 10-4-1992 in the cadre of Typist-cum-LDC. 5. In the counter filed by the appellants-respondents, it is not denied that the services of the persons whose names were mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition were regularized with effect from 19-4-1988 in the respective posts in which they were working as NMRs. But it is stated that those orders were passed in view of certain representations made by them and on the recommendations of the Government or on the orders passed by this court. 6. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition holding that the first respondent herein is entitled to be treated on par with others, who were appointed as NMRs during the period from 01-1-1979 to 31-3-1984 for regularization of the services and directed the appellants herein to regularize the services of the first respondent in the cadre of Typist- cum-LDC w.e.f. 19-4-1988 and reckon his seniority in the said cadre from 19-4-1988 and also extend all other benefits. The learned single Judge also made clear that the first respondent is not entitled to any monetary benefit from 19-4-1988 to 10-4-1992. 7. Now the main contention of the appellants is that the first respondent has no legal or vested right to claim the relief as prayed in the writ petition and that the first respondent was engaged as NMR worker and there was already a typist working and there was no vacant post of typist. The first respondent’s services were regularized as Mazdoor on par with other NMRs. The first respondent was appointed as Typist on 17-5-1992 and subsequently he was promoted in the cadre of Senior Assistant on 19-4-2001. The claim of the first respondent is that he should be regularized as Typist/LDC w.e.f. 19-4- 1988, i.e., the date of his absorption as NMR. The learned single Judge erred in granting the relief which is not permissible in law and thereby committed error apparent on the face of the record. 8. The learned single Judge after carefully examining the matter observed that in some cases, on mere representations filed by the persons concerned seeking regularization of their services as per GO.Ms.No.296, dated 19-4-1988, their services were regularized in the cadre in which they were appointed on NMR basis. It is not the case of the appellants that the posts in which the other persons, who were appointed on NMR basis were all sanctioned posts. The only ground on which the services of other persons were regularized was either in view of the orders passed by the Government or of the orders passed by this court in various writ petitions. We are of the considered view that the learned single Judge has rightly dealt with the matter in extenso and therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference of this court under clause XV of letters patent. The order passed by the learned single Judge in the main writ petition is confirmed in all respects. 9. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ________________________________ JUSTICE C. V. NAGARJUNA REDDY. 05-3-2009. I s L ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {LS}