Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from writ petitions filed by ex-inmates of Sri Venkateshwara Balamandir, an orphanage run by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, challenging their non-selection for 297 Attender posts in 1991. The Devasthanams provided free boarding, lodging, clothing and education to inmates up to the age of 18 and considered qualified inmates or ex-inmates for posts without requiring Employment Exchange sponsorship. In 1980, the Executive Officer recorded proceedings stating that every Balamandir candidate should be given maximum education and provided employment in Devasthanams as a matter of routine without reference to Employment Exchange, and would be continued in Balamandir until given jobs. The Government exempted these candidates from the purview of Employment Exchange by order dated 5.6.1982. Rules 5, 6 and 8 of the Balamandir rules dealt with discharge, personal records, and disqualification. Rule 6(b) stated that personal records would be considered while giving preference in appointment, and Rule 6(d) said that as far as possible inmates would be absorbed subject to eligibility and suitability. For the 1991 vacancies, 2944 candidates were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and 193 inmates and ex-inmates, including the respondents, were considered. Of these, 145 appeared for written test and interview, and 53 were selected. The respondents, not having been selected, filed separate writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh contending that they should be treated at par with inmates and given preference, and that non-selection was arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court by common judgment allowed the writ petitions, holding that the cases of former inmates had to be considered on the basis of Resolution No. 307 dated 27.10.1984 and clauses (b) and (d) of Rule 6, and directed appointment of the respondents as Attenders. On appeal, the appellant argued that all respondents were considered but not found fit; automatic employment could not be given; clause 6(b) only meant preference if all things were equal; and selection was validly done through written test and interview. The respondents supported the High Court's direction. The Supreme Court analyzed the rules and proceedings, holding that preference under Rule 6(b) did not imply appointment irrespective of merit. The very fact that interviews were held even in 1991 showed that suitability had to be judged. The 1980 proceedings did not create a promise for automatic employment, and the 1994 resolution had no application to the 1991 selection. No prejudice was caused to the respondents as they were considered among 193 candidates and only 53 were selected, indicating they were not equally meritorious. The High Court clearly erred in granting appointment to candidates who had been considered but found not fit for selection. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment, dismissed the writ petitions, and ordered no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Public Employment - Preference Clause - Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Balamandir Rules, Rule 6(b) - The issue was whether Rule 6(b) required automatic appointment of inmates/ex-inmates irrespective of merit. Supreme Court interpreted preference as applying only when merits equal; selection through written test and interview was valid; respondents not selected were not equally meritorious. Held that no automatic appointment could be claimed and writ petitions should be dismissed. B) Service Law - Public Employment - Automatic Employment Promise - Executive Officer Proceedings dated 23.4.1980 and Board Resolution dated 30/31.3.1994 - The High Court gave direction based on 1980 proceedings and 1984 resolution. Supreme Court held 1980 proceedings only indicated routine consideration after studies and without employment exchange, but interviews held even in 1991 showed suitability judged; 1994 resolution had no retrospective effect. Held that there was no promise or obligation to employ automatically. C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Review of Selection - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The High Court allowed writ petitions and directed appointment without finding the selection arbitrary; 193 inmates/ex-inmates considered, 53 selected. Supreme Court held High Court erred in granting appointment to respondents who were considered but not found fit; absence of equal merit meant no prejudice. Held that appeals allowed, High Court judgment set aside, writ petitions dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether ex-inmates of Sri Venkateshwara Balamandir were entitled to automatic appointment or preference in appointment as Attenders under Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams rules, and whether the High Court was justified in directing their appointment without selection.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; High Court judgment set aside; writ petitions dismissed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Preference under Rule 6(b) means preference only when merits are equal
- appointment of inmates/ex-inmates is not automatic
- selection by written test and interview is valid
- Executive Officer proceedings do not create absolute right to employment
- High Court cannot grant appointment without finding selection arbitrary
