TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS Vs. P. UMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed assailing the order dated 18 -07 -2013 in W.P.No.6748 of 2012 passed by a learned single Judge.

(2.) THE 1st respondent (for short the respondent) filed a writ petition stating that the Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam, the appellants, invited application for the post of Clerk in the SPW Polytechnic Hostel and she submitted an application in response thereto. Through a resolution dated 03 -10 -1990, the Hostel Committee is said to have selected and appointed her as Clerk and that she joined the duty on 20 -11 -1990. The respondent further stated that in the year 1991, the Trust Board of the Devasthanam passed resolution sanctioning 139 posts of various categories including 21 posts of Junior Assistants in the Colleges and Hostels, run by it, and in relation thereto, the particulars of all the employees working in the hostel including that of the respondent were sent. She stated that some of the employees whose services were not regularized, filed W.P.No.18873 of 1994 and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.673 of 12 -10 -2001, accepting the proposals of the Devasthanam for regularization of the services of all the temporary employees. The respondent further stated that though she passed B.Com. Degree in April, 2005, the services of herself and many others were regularized as Multi Purpose Workers (MPW) vide proceedings dated 27 -08 -2008. She made reference to W.P.No.12175 of 2001 filed by herself and others, for regularization; and W.P.No.8766 of 2007, wherein she complained about the denial of pay scale for the post of Junior Assistant to her, the order passed and the consequential rejection of her claim by the Devasthanam through proceedings dated 20 -08 -2007. Ultimately, she claimed the relief of a direction to the appellants to re -designate her as Junior Assistant in the existing sanctioned post with effect from the date of regularization i.e. 21 -11 -2007, as has been done in respect of all other similarly situated employees in terms of judgment dated 31 -08 -2005 in W.P.No.24974 of 2001.

(3.) THE contention of the respondent was that she has been appointed against a post of Junior Assistant at the inception, there is no post of MPW in the establishment of College and hostels, she held requisite qualifications for the post of Junior Assistant, and that there is no justification for not re -designating her as Junior Assistant. She has also claimed parity with certain other employees. It was pleaded that the reasons mentioned in the order dated 29 -09 -2012 are factually incorrect and legally untenable.