LAWS(APH)-2006-2-83

G SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVSTHANAM

Decided On February 03, 2006
G.SUBRAHMANYAM Appellant
V/S
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAM, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was engaged as an NMR worker in the S.G.S Arts College Hostel, Tirupati, which is part of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (for short 'Devasthanams'), with effect from 1-7-1976. Thereafter, he was appointed/promoted as a Clerk, with effect from 14-1978, and the same was ratified on 15-4-1978. Petitioner was promoted as Manager, in the cadre of Senior Assistant, through a resolution of the Hostel Committee, dated 21-3-1991. On 3-6-1991, the Board of Trustees of the Devasthanam (for short 'the Board') ratified the promotion of the petitioner. The 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 9-12-2004, pointing out that the promotion of the petitioner, as Manager, was irregular, inasmuch as the petitioner does not hold the requisite qualifications, and he was directed to show-cause as to why he shall not be reverted to the post of Junior Assistant. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 23-12-2004. The 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 17-3-2005, reverting the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Petitioner submits that the 1st respondent as well as the Government have exempted him and several other workers, engaged in the Hostel, from the requirements of age and qualifications, and in that view of the matter, it is not open to the 1st respondent to revert him. He contends that the promotion, which was effected more than 15 years ago, cannot be set at naught at this stage.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. The particulars, as to the service of the petitioner, ever since he was engaged as NMR; are not disputed. It is pleaded that the appointment of the petitioner, as a Junior Assistant, was neither confirmed nor ratified, and that he did not possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Manager (Senior Assistant). It is urged that the petitioner was promoted by mistake, and contrary to the rules and that he cannot derive any right out of it. It is also stated that the petitioner was never exempted from holding the qualifications, for the post of Manager (Senior Assistant).