P. SESHADRI versus S. MANGATI GOPAL REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 1134 · Decided: 29-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 1134 
P. SESHADRI 
v. 
S. MANGATI GOPAL REDDY AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No(s). 2688 of 2011) 
MARCH 29, 2011 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
,PUBLIC INTEREST LIT/GA TION_ : 
Writ petition before High Court - Challenging extensions 
granted to Parpathedar of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam 
by TTD Board - Allowed by High Courl - Held : High Court 
ought to have satisfied itself with regard to the credentials of 
0 the writ petitioner before entertaining the petition as pubL 
interest litigation - A pure and simple service matter has been 
deliberately disguised as a public interest litigation at the 
instance of some disgruntled employees - The controversy 
with regard to the management of the Temple properties and 
E funds, regarding which different proceedings are pending, 
have been deliberately mixed up with the extension granted 
to the employee - Order of High Courl set aside - Service 
law·- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226. 
F 
SERVICE LAW: 
Tl RU MALA Tl RU PA THI DEVASTHANAM SERVICE 
RULES, 1989: 
rr. 2 and 13 - Extensions of service of Parpathedar on 
contract basis after his superannuation at the age of sixty -
G High Court holding the extensions as contrary to r.' 13 and 
setting aside the order of TTD Board - Held: In terms of r.2, 
officers or staff who are appointed on contract basis or are 
taken on deputation from Government or other organization 
H 
1134 
P. SESHADRI v. S. MANGAT! GOPAL REDDY AND 1135 
ORS. 
form a separate class and are not covered by the Rules -
A·· 
Engagement of employee concerned on contract basis would 
not attract r. 13 - High Court erred in relying on r. 13 to nullify 
the appointment of the employee - Order of High Court set . 
aside - Public interest litigation - Constitution of India, Article 
22a 
B 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
Article 226 - Order disposing of writ petition - Recording 
of reasons - Held: Is the fundamental to the administration 
of justice - In the instant case, the order passed by High Court 
C 
does not satisfy the bare minimum requirement of an order 
disµosing of writ petition under Article 226 - Administration 
of justice - Judgments/Orders. 
Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition stated to be in 
D 
public interest alleging that the various extensions given 
by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Board to the 
appellant, who had superannuated as Parpathedar from 
the service of the Board w.e.f. 31-7-2006, were wholly 
illegal and were in arbitrary exercise of power by the no E 
Board. The last such extension challenged was dated 
1.8.2009 for a period of 2 years from 2-8-2009 to 1-9-2011. 
It was stated that the writ petition was filed to bring to the 
notice of the High Court various mis-appropriations and 
embezzlement of funds; that the actions of the appellant 
F 
were doubted; and that his services were extended for 
ulterior motives. The High Court allowed the writ petition 
holding that as per r.13 of the Tirumala Tirupathi 
Deveasthanam Service Rule, 1989, services of the 
appella.,t could not have been extended beyond the age 
of sixty yt. '.'\rs and as the appellant had crossed the age 
G 
of sixty years, "r'>hibition in r. 13 against his continuation 
was manifest. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
1136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. From the pleadings of the parties, it 
appears that there is a serious dispute with regard to the 
management and the administration of the affairs of the 
Temple. Admittedly, separate proceedings are pending in 
different courts of competent jurisdiction with regard to 
B those issues. Those proceedings cannot be confused or 
merged with the subject matter of the writ petition filed 
by respondent No.1. [para 15) [1145-G-H; 1146-A] 
1.2. It is not disputed that the appellant was in the 
C service of the Temple for many years. He retired from the 
service of the Temple on 31st July, 2006. It appears from 
the records that the Board of Trustees, keeping in v'~w 
the vast experience of the appellant, his profound 
knowledge of fairs and festivals and day-to-day affairs ·;f 
0 the Temple, his public relations skill and his availability 
round the clock for all the 365 days of the year, resolved 
to utilize his services on contract basis for a period of 
two years initially which was followed by further 
extensions, and the last such extension being for a 
period of two years through Resolution No.178 dated 
E 28th July, 2009 pursua

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.