S DATTATREYA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. S.Dattatreya Rao and others, the writ petitioners in W.P. No.9915 of 2001, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition dated 19-8-2003 had preferred the present writ appeal. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to impose ban on private practice by the Ayurvedic College and hospitals of R-2 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to restrain them from imposing such ban and to pass such suitable orders. The learned Single Judge disposed of writ petition, while vacating the interim order, directing the respondents to consider the issue of payment of private practice allowance. The said order of learned Single Judge is assailed in this writ appeal.

(2.) Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy representing Sri B. Narayana Reddy, the Counsel for appellants-petitioners made the following submissions:

(3.) The learned Counsel would contend that the appellants also are governed by the rules and regulations as are applicable to the Government Servants and the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989, (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Rules' for the purpose of convenience). The Counsel also contended that these doctors are also the teaching staff of the Ayurvedic College and by virtue of Rule 9 of the Rules, the Rules are applicable as in case of: Universities inclusive of N.T.R. Health University. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 4 and Rule 9 of the said Rules. The Counsel also with all emphasis would maintain that Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Board (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Board' for the purpose of convenience) has no power, authority or jurisdiction to make any resolution in this regard, especially contrary to the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, Act 30 of 1987 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience) and the rules made thereunder. The Counsel also submitted that the ban imposed in fact was kept in abeyance. The attention of the Court was drawn to Sections 95, 97-B and 153 of the Act. The Counsel would maintain that the prior resolutions, inclusive of the Resolution No.715, dated 25-2-1986 cannot be sustained since such ban cannot be imposed by virtue of a resolution by the Board. The Counsel concluded that inasmuch as the same service conditions applicable to Government Servants and persons working in teaching institutions are to be made applicable to the appellants-petitioners the resolutions of the Board are of no consequence and hence the writ petitioners-appellants are bound to succeed.