TIRUMALA TIRUPATL DEVASTHANAMS versus K. JOTHEESWARA PILLAI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 03-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

TIRUMALA TIRUPA Tl DEVASTHANAMS 
A 
~" 
v. 
K. JOTHEESWARA PILLAI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
MAY 03, 2007 
(G.P. MATHUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Sen1ice law-Termination-On the ground that employees were not 
eligible for appointment being over-aged-Appointment was given on the 
) 
basis of a Circular giving preference lo ex-employees in appointment-High c 
Court directing their reinstatement on the ground that by not gra/1/ing 
exemption from age criterion, employer had indulged in discrimination as on 
previous occasions, such exemptions given in other cases-On appeal, held: 
There being no statutory provision or rule providing for exemption from 
eligibility criterion, employees rightly terminaled-Tirumala Tirupathi 
Devasthanams Employees Sen:ice Rules, 1989-r. 11. 
D 
A Circular was issued by the appellant-employer to the effect that in 
case of any vacancies, ex-employees should be appointed in order of seniority. 
The respondent-employees were appointed as Attenders on the basis of the 
Circular, being ex-employees (Nominal Mustor Rolls Employees). After 
verification, as the respondents were found to be of overage, their services E 
were terminated. The termination was challenged. On the direction of High 
Court, respondents were given opportunity to be heard and thereafter again 
termination order was passed. The same being challenged, High Court set 
aside the order of termination and directed their reinstatement with back 
wages on the ground that on two earlier occasions, the employer had granted F 
exemption from age and qualifications and it was not explained by the employer 
as to why discretion could not be exercised in the present case. Writ Appeal 
was dismissed summarily by the Division Bench of High Court. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: I. I. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 
1989 make complete provisions regarding qualification and age for direct 
recruitment and also in respect of category of persons to whom relaxation 
can be granted which would be in accordance with the Government Orders. 
~ 
1 
H 
' 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A The Rules do not mention anywhere that while making direct recruitment. 
f-
any services rendered as an NMR employees has to be taken into consideration 
or some relaxation in age is to be granted on its basis. The respondents had 
worked for a brief period as NMR employees. It was after a gap of more than 
six years that they were appointed by way of direct recruitment. Under the 
B 
Rules they were clearly ineligible for being given any appointment as 
admittedly they were over-aged. jPara 51 [5-G-H; 6-A) 
1.2. The reasons given by the Single Judge of High Court for allowing 
the writ petition are wholly untenable in law. Merely because on two earlier 
occasions the appellant granted exemption from eligibility criterion in respect 
l 
c 
of some employees cannot be a ground to grant relief to the writ petitioners. 
Even if some concession had been shown to some employees in the past it 
would not confer any right upon anyone seeking employment in future to claim 
exemption from eligibility criterion as a matter of right. [Para 7) [6-D-E) 
K. V. Rajalakshmiah Setty and Anr. v. State of Mysore and Anr., AIR 
(1967) SC 993, relied on. 
D 
1.3. The view taken by the Single Judge that by not granting exemption 
from age criterion the appellant had indulged in invidious discrimination is 
clearly erroneous in law. !Para 7) 17-A) 
2. There being no statutory provision or rule providing for exemption 
E 
from eligibility criterion, Single Judge of High Court clearly erred in issuing 
a writ of Mandamus against the appellant directing it to consider the case of 
respondent for granting him exemption from the rule providing for upper age 
limit for fresh appointment. (Para 8) 17-F) 
Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd v. Sipahi 
Singh, AIR (1977) SC 2149, relied on. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7962 of2004. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 21.01.2003 of the High Court 
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 422 of 1998. 
K. Amareswari, B. Sridhar and K. Ram Kumar for the Appellant. 
G 
T. Anamika and T.N. Rao for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G. P. MATHUR, J. !. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred 
against the judgment and order dated 21.1.2003 of a Division Bench of Andhra 
,._ 
H Pradesh 

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