LexT. VENKATESWARULU versus EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 865 _____.,.._ T.VENKATESVVARULU A II. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6583-6584 of 2008) NOVEMBER 7, 2008 B ,-4 [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN; JJ.] ~ Service Law - Parity in posts - Determination of - Promotional avenues provided to the. post of 'Supervisor' - c . Draughtsman Grade I claiming promotion - Denial of since he was not entitled under existing Rules - Subsequently promotion granted on the basis of subsequent Rules w.e.f. the date the Rules came into force - Claim for promotion from r anterior date i.e. from the date. he attained eligibility for the D promotional post-Denial of - Challenged as discriminatory claiming parity with the post of 'Supervisor' - Held: Plea of discrimination not sustainable - The posts were different - Claimant also failed to establish discrimination on the part of the State - In order to determine discrimination, not only the E functional parity, but also mode of recruitment, qualification and responsibilities attached to the two offices have to be established -:- The ·burden to establish the discrimination is ' ,,,;. _ on the claimant - Claimant was not entitled to all the Government orders available to graduate supervisors - The F decision to promote graduate supervisors, was a policy decision - Courts should ordinarily not interfere with Equation of posts and determination of pay scales unless it is absolutely necessary to undo injustice being caused - Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Service Rules, 1978 - G A. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Employees Service Rules, 1989 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16. '/ Appellant was appointed as a 'Draughtsman· Grade- • I, with respondent No.1. The post was lower to- the post 865 H 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. A of 'Supervisor'. State Government by G.O. 563 dated 17.3.1978 provided that Supervisors who acquire graduate qualification could be promoted temporarily to tl:le post of Junior Eng.ineers which was later re- d.esignated as Asstt. Executive Engineer. Under Tirumala B Tirupathi Devasthanam Service Rules, 1978, there was no provision for promotion of Supervisors as Junior Engineers. In the meantime, appellant acquired Graduation degree on 28.8.1983. He sought benefit of G.Q. 563~ but the same was denied. In writ petition c ·challenging the same, High Court directed to consider the appeHant for promotion sought, if he was eligible according to Rules. Respondent No. 1 found him not suitable under 1978 Rules. Writ petition challenging the Qfder resulted in direction to respondent No. 1 to 0 consider his case on the basis of rules existing on the date the order was passed. In the meantime Tirumal.a Tirupati Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989 came into force w.e.f. 24.10.1989. Respondent No.1, there.fore~ considered the case of appellant under 1989 Rules an~ appointed him on the post w.e.f .. 26.10.1989 i.e. E the date the 1989 Rules were enforced. Appellant filed another writ petition seeking his promotion w.e.f. the date of h·is qualifying degree examination i.e. 28.8.1983. He contended that denial of the benefit to th'a appellant since 28.8.1983 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 F and 16 of the Constitution as the same benefit was given to the Supervisors. Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition. Cross Writ Appeals w,.ere filed. Division Bench of High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge. Hence the present appeals. G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Single Judge of High Court fell into an error in accepting the plea of discrim1ination, for: which there was no factual basis. Since thu plea of parity of H )..._ . T. VEN KA TESWARULU v. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 867 TIRUMALA T!RUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS & ORS. ,- "'\ Draughtsmen Grade-I with the Supervisors had to be A examined on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the burden was upon the appellant to establish discrimination by placing on record cogent I materials. For this purpose, the crucial factor to be established is not only the functional parity of the two B cadres, but also the mode of recruitment, qualification A and the responsibilities attached to the two offices. All this \,. information is necessary to analyse the rationa~e behind the State action in giving different treatment to two classes of i~ employees and then dete
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.