http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: EXECUTIVE OFFICER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: E. TIRUPALU & ORS. ETC

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/03/1996

BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) BENCH: KIRPAL B.N. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1311            JT 1996 (3)   453  1996 SCALE  (3)96

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             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                       J U D G M E N T KIRPAL.J      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

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.