Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams vs K. Jotheeswara Pillai (D) By Lrs & Others

2. The original writ petitioners before the learned single Judge worked for certain periods with the appellant Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams as Nominal Muster Rolls (for short 'NMR') employees. A circular was issued by the appellant on 25.7.1990 wherein it was mentioned that in case of any vacancies, ex-employees should be appointed in order of seniority. The five writ petitioners were temporarily appointed as Attenders by the appellant on 17.8.1992 on the basis of aforesaid circular being ex-employees. After verification of the records and other documents it was found that all the five writ petitioners were overage and were not eligible for appointment and accordingly their services were terminated on 16.4.1993. This order was challenged by the employees by filing Writ Petition No. 5176 of 1993, which was allowed only on the ground that the action had been taken against the writ petitioners without issuing any notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing. The order of termination dated 16.4.1993 was set aside leaving it open to the appellant to take fresh action after giving notice to the concerned employees. The appellant then issued notices to the concerned employees on 26.10.1993 and after considering their reply, passed an order on 30.12.1993 terminating their services on the ground that they were over age and, therefore, ineligible for appointment. The employees then filed writ petition No. 3885 of 1994 challenging the order of termination dated 30.12.1993. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of termination of service and directed the appellant to reinstate the employees (respondents herein) with continuity of service and full back wages. The main ground which weighed with the learned Single Judge was that though the writ petitioners were appointed as direct recruits on 17.8.1992, but the fact that they had earlier worked for some time on NMR could not be ignored. It was also held that the appellant had practiced invidious discrimination among persons belonging to the same class inasmuch as by proceedings dated 6.4.1993 exemption had been granted to 51 persons from age and educational qualifications and on 4.5.1990 exemption had been granted to five persons who were under age. After mentioning the said facts the learned Single Judge held as under: -

Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that by not granting exemption from age criterion the appellant had indulged in invidious discrimination is clearly erroneous law.

There being no statutory provision or rule providing for exemption from eligibility criterion, the learned Single Judge clearly erred in issuing a writ of mandamus against the appellant directing it to consider the case of writ petitioner No. 5 for granting him exemption from the rule providing for upper age limit for fresh appointment.

9. In view of the discussion made above the impugned judgments of the High Court cannot be sustained and must be set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order dated 20.11.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge and the judgment and order dated 21.1.2003 of the Division Bench are set aside and the writ petition filed by the contesting respondents is dismissed.

10. No order as to costs.