Executive
Officer Vs. E. Tirupalu & Ors [1996] INSC 459 (26 March 1996)
Kirpal
B.N. (J) Kirpal B.N. (J) Verma, Jagdish Saran (J) Kirpal.J
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1311 JT 1996 (3) 453 1996 SCALE (3)96
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4515-4516 OF 1996 Executive Officer V. C.R. Siva Reddy & Anr.
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4517 OF 1996 Tirumala Tiru. Devsth V. R.Satyanarayana Swamy
WITH CIVIL
APPEAL NOS. 4518-4524 OF 1996 Executive Officer, Tirumala Tiru. Deva V. M. Jayaprakash
& Ors. etc.
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4525 OF 1996 Executive Officer V. T. Venkateswarlu & Anr.
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4526 OF 1996 Executive Officer V. C. Vani
The Tirumala
Tirupati Devasthanams, the appellant herein, started Sri Venkateshwara Balamandir
which is an Orphange for orphans and destitute children for providing free
boarding, lodging, clothing and education upto the age of 18 years so as to
enable them to acquire good education and get employment. According to the
appellants when an inmate/ex-inmate of the Balamandir is qualified and eligible
to a post in Devasthanams, he is considered along with other inmates as per the
rules of recruitment in vogue. The Executive Officer of the Devasthanams on
23.4.1980 recorded proceedings, inter alia, to the effect that every Balamandir
candidate should be given maximum education and when he has completed the same,
he should be provided with the employment in Devasthanams as a matter of
routine without reference to Employment Exchange. It was Further recorded that
till they are given jobs in Devasthanams, they will be continued in the Balamandir.
At the
request of the appellant, the Government exempted the inmates/ex-inmates of the
Balamandir from the purview of Employment Exchange by order dated 5.6.1982. The
ex-inmates are those who are discharged from the Balamandir.
Rule 5
of the Rules framed by the Devasthanams deals with discharge from the Balamandir
and Rule 6, which deals with personal records and Rule 8 which refers to
disqualification from being entitled to any benefit, are as under:
"5:
Discharge a) All the inmates who attain the age of 18 years shall be discharged
at the end of the academic year in which they complete the age of 18 years;
b) In
case the parent/guardian of the inmate requests for premature discharge of the inmats
such request will be considered on personal grounds. If the Management
considers that such request is genuine and justifies the premature discharge of
the inmates, the discharge may be considered.
c) Any
inmate who fails or is detained any class will be discharged forthwith.
d)
Indiscipline will not be tolerated. The Manager, Bala Mandir will report cases
of indiscipline to the Devasthanams Educational Officer. The Devasthanams
Educational Officer will give warning for not more than two occasions during
the whole career to the inmate. A third case of indiscipline may result in
discharge. Absence from prayer without permission of the Manager will be
treated as indiscipline.
6)
PERSONAL RECORDS ---------------- "Dosiers" will have to be
maintained for each inmate giving out and particulars of admission, medical
check-up report, and progress report and cases of discipline etc. In short,
should be a personal record of the concerned inmate during his stay in the Bala
Mandir.
a) The
personal record will be reviewed by the Devasthanams Educational Officer once
in a year.
b) The
personal records will be taken into consideration while considering the inmates
case for giving preference in appointment in TTD.
c) The
personal record will be received by the Dev. Educational Officer once in a
year.
d) As
far as possible the inmates of Bala Mandir will be absorbed in the various
institutions of the TTD subject to their being eligible and suitable.
8)
DISQUALIFICATION
If an
inmate is ordered to be removed on the ground of punishment or on the ground of
admission furnishing false information such inmate shall not be entitled to any
benefit as an inmate of the Bala Mandir. An entry shall be made against this
name in the admission register and other relevant registers to indicate the
disqualification.
The
above enclosures, therefore, placed before the Management Committee and Board
for its approval of the "Norms formulated now in regard to S.V. Bala Mandir,
Tirupati." The respondents being ex-inmates of the Balamandir. who have
filed separate writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. had been
discharged from the said Institution though they had not completed their
education.
In the
year 1991, there were 297 vacancies for the post of Attenders. According to the
counsel for the appellant, the practice of the appellant was that all the
inmates of the Balamandir are considered for appointment if they are qualified
without their having to make any application. The qualification required for
being appointed as an Attender is that the candidate should have Passed class
VIII. The ex- inmates were also entitled to be considered for appointment and
though they were not required to apply through the Employment Exchange they
were required to apply directly.
Names
were also sponsored by the Employment Exchange and for the 297 vacancies, 2944
candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and 193 candidates were
the inmates and ex-inmates of the Balamandir, including the respondents who
were considered. As the number of candidates were more than the number of
vacancies, selection took place by the Authorities by holding written test and
interview. It is stated that out of 193 inmates/ex-inmates of the Balamandir,
only 145 appeared at the written test and interview and 53 from amongst them
were selected for the post of Attenders.
The
respondents. not having been selected for the aforesaid Posts of Attenders,
filed different writ petitions which were disposed of by the common judgment
which is impugned in these Appeals. The contention of the respondents before
the High Court was that they should be treated at par with inmates end they
should also be given preference in appointment under the Devasthanams. On
behalf of the applicant the recruitment was made by selection from eligible
candidates and it was brought to the notice of the High Court that on
30/31.3.1994, the Devasthanam passed a Resolution relating to ex-inmates. The
suggestion of the Sub-Committee. Which was put before the Devasthahams Board,
is as undr:
"1.
(i) The inmates of S.V. Bala Mandir, who are discharged edcept on the following
grounds ned not be considered as ex-inmates for sending call letters for the
interviews and for such other benefits, if any.
(a)
Inmates with good personal record and discharged on successful Completion of education
and after attaining the age of 18 years of age.
(b)
Inmates with good personal record but discharged on failure in any class.
(ii)
The orders issued by the then Executive Officer. TTDs in Memo Roc. No.
E3/10110/79, dated 23.4.1980 regarding the appointment of inmates of S.V. Bala Mandir
in TTDs service without subjecting them for any selection and also to continue
them in the orphange till them are ginen jobs in t-t- Devasthanams may be
nullified so as to avoid Court litigations.
On
this suggestion, the following Resolution was passed on 30/31.3.1994:
"Proposal
at (I) may be approved except that inmates discharged on failure in any class
may not be considered as ex-inmates. Proposal (II) also approved." The
High Court in our opinion rightly, came to the conclusion that the aforesaid
Resolution of 30/31.3.1994 had no application to the present case presumably
because the selection had been made for appointment to the 297 vacancies in the
year 1991. The High Court then gave the following derection:
"From
the above discussion it follows that the cases of the former inmates will have
to be considered on the basis of the position obtaining under the resolution
no. 307, dated 27.10.1984 and fheir cases have to be considered in terms of
clauses (b) and (d) of Rule(6).
In
view of the above writ petition No. 13123 of 1993 has to be allowed and
accordingly, it is allowed.
Accordingly,
Writ petition Nos.7927/92, 20032/93, 20161/90, 20499/94, 18205/93, 12498/98 and
16449/94 are also allowed. No costs.
On
behalf of the appellant, it is contended that all the respondents were consjdered
for being appointed to the post of Attenders but they were not found fit. Most
of the persons who were selected were those who had been sponsored by the Emplovment
Exchange. The thrust of the argument of Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for
the appellant was that there could not be any automatic employment given to all
the inmates and ex-inmates and tha clause 6(b) of the Rules only meant that if
all things are equal, then the inmates will be given preference for appointment
under the Devasthanams. In the present case, the effect of allowing the writ
petitions filed by the respondents was that the appellants were now directed to
appoint the respondents as attenders even though they had not been found fit
for such appointments. It may here be noitced that one of the prayers in the
write petitions was that the non-selection of the petitioners should be treated
as arbitrary and discriminatory and the appellants herein should be directed to
appoint the writ petitioners in accordance with the existing rules regarding
appointments of candidates to the Balamandir. While disposing of the writ
petitions, the High Court held that the writ petitions were allowed. The
implication of this was that the reliefs prayed for in the writ petitions stood
granted in toto.
It is
quite evident from the facts enumerated hereinabove that no prejuduce could be
regarded to have been caused to the respondents by their being regarded as ex-
inmates. the total number of vacancies which were avainable were more than the
total number of candidates who were inmates and ex-inmates. It is unfortunate
that these in- house candidates were not selected. Clause (b) of Rule 6 which
refers to preference being given to the inmates in appointment in the Devasthanams
does not and cannot imply that irrespective of the merits of the candidates,
the inmates have to be given appointments. The appellants have rightly resorted
to the procequre of making selection from the inmates, ex-inmates and general
candidates who were eligible, by holding written test/interviews and clause 6
can only mean that with the merits of the candidates being equal,preference
would be gibven to the inmates of the Balamandir.
The
reference by the High Court to the proceedings of the Executive Officer on
23.4.1980 is also mis-placed. The passage on which reliance is placed is as
follows:
"Some
of the present inmates of S.V. Bala Mandir, Tirupati have appeared for
interview on 12.2.1980 for appointment in TTD though they are still studying in
the college.
The of
the present inmates of S.V. Bala Mandir, Tirupati is informed that the mase of
the present inmates of S.V. Bala Mandir, Tirupati for appointment in TTO will
be considered after their completion of studies. Every Bala Mandir candidate
should be given maximum education he would like to have. As and when he
finished the education, he would be provided emplovment in TTO as a matter of
routine without reference to Employment, Exchange. Till they are givan jobs in TTD,
they will be continued in the Bala Mandir.
Every
year the Special officer, S.V. Bala mandir, will send a list three or four
months in advance about all the candidates who would be completing education or
completing their age and eligable for employment." The aforesaid
proceedings merely state that interviews were held for appointment under the Devasthanms
even as far back as in 1981. It further states that the p resent inmates will
be considered for appointment after their completion of studies and they will
be given emplovment as a matter of routine without reference to the Employment
Exchange. The very fact that interviews were held even in 1991 shows that the
suitability of the candidates for appointment had to be jugged and that
appointment of the inmates/ex-inmales was not automatic. On the facts of the
present case,the distinction between inmates and ex-inmates looses all relenance
because 193 inmates/ex-inmates were considered for appointment and 53 of them
were selected. In comparison to the candidates who were selected, the
respondents were obviously not found to be equally meritorious. Counsel for the
respondent has not been able to show that at any point of time, there was a
promise or an obligation on the part of Devasthanams to give employment to the inmates,even
if it is presumed that the ex-inmates like the respondents have to be treated
at par with the inmates. Under these circumstances, the High Court clearly
erred in issuing the direction which had the effect of granting appointment to
the rospondents even though they were considered but were not found to be fit
for selection. The High Court ought to have held that there could be no
automatic employment of inmates and ex-inmates by the appellant and that they
had to go through a process of selection. There was a selection in the year
1991 when the respondents were considered but were found not to be fit for
selection and no relief could have been granted to the respondennts The appeals
are accordingly, allowed. The impugned Judgment of the High Court is set aside,
the effect of which is that the writ petitions filed by the respondents shall
stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
