C SRINIVASULU Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Question here involved is squarely covered by Division Bench ruling of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 36/92 dated 9th March, 1992. Learned Counsel, however, submits that the said decision needs to be reconsidered.

(2.) Hearing Counsel on either side at some length and going through the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India vs. N. Hargopal, we see no justification for reconsidering the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of this Court. In fact, this very Supreme Court ruling has been referred to in the above judgment and constitutes one of the bases of the said judgment.

(3.) Respondent-Devasthanam was perfectly within its right while recruiting attenders to state that only those sponsored by the Employment Exchange will be considered. This in a way regulates the mode of recruitment and eliminates to the extent reasonably possible element of arbitrariness in the matter of recruitment and appointment. As observed by this Court in the Division Bench ruling supra,-