KRISHNAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are working in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) as Head Vigilance Guards and Jamedars, have filed this writ petition praying for the following relief: To issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to implement the recommendations made vide Roc.TL5/ 3933=58/94, dated 18.2.1997 by respondent No.2 and make necessary amendments to T.T.D. Service Rules by including the post of Security Inspector in accordance with the method of recruitment and qualifications as suggested and recommended.

(2.) The petitioners state that on the representation made by them to the 2nd respondent, namely the Executive Officer that since they have been working as Head Vigilance Guards and Jamedars for the last more than 15 years, they should be given promotion as Security Inspectors, the 2nd respondent placed the matter before the Board of Trustees of TTD, who passed a resolution on 10.9.1995 approving the proposal for conversion of three posts of Vigilance and Security Inspectors as Security Inspectors, providing for a channel of promotion to Head Vigilance Guards and Jamedars as Security Inspectors. Pursuant to the said resolution, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter dated 18.9.1995, followed by another letter dated 18.2.1997, requesting the 1st respondent, Principal Secretary to the Government in the Revenue Department, to amend the Service Rules so as to provide promotion channel from the posts of Head Vigilance Guards and Jamedars as Security Inspectors, but till date no action thereon had been taken by the 1st respondent. Hence they filed this writ petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners the petitioners are working as Head Vigilance Guards and Jamedars, and as there is no channel of promotion for them, on their request, the Board of Trustees of TTD passed a resolution for converting three posts of Vigilance and Security Inspectors as Security Inspectors, providing for promotion to the post of Security Inspectors from the cadre of Head Vigilance Guards and Jamedars. He submits that though pursuant to the said resolution, the 2nd respondent has addressed two letters, requesting the 1st respondent to amend the Service Rules providing for a promotion channel from the cadre of Head Vigilance Guards and Jamedars to the post of Security Inspector, the 1st respondent has not taken thereon to amend the Service Rules, which is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the petitioners have reached the stagnation level in the posts of Head Vigilance Guards and Jamedars, and if the 1st respondent does not amend the Service Rules providing for promotion to the post of Security Inspector from the said cadre, the petitioners will be required to work in the posts of Head Vigilance Guards and Jamedars only throughout their entire service, which will not be in the interest of the administration. In support of his various contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments of the apex Court in Raghunath Pd. Singh v. Secy., Home (Police) Dept., Government of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 1033, P. & T. S.C./T. Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 139, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi v. Indra Pratap Singh, AIR 1992 SC 780, Union of India v. N.P. Thomas, AIR 1993 SC 1605, F.C.I. Ltd. v. Sarat Chandra Rath, AIR 1996 SC 2744, Kuldeep Kumar Gupta v. H.P.S.E.B., AIR 2001 SC 308, K.R. Lakshman v. Karnataka Electricity Board, AIR 2001 SC 595 and V. Jagannadha Rao v. State of A.P., 2002 (1) ALD 115 (SC) = AIR 2002 SC 77.