A RAMAKRISHNA RAJU Vs. TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule nisi.

(2.) Sri Sivaiah, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation takes notice for respondents 2 to 5. Smt.P. Saradha takes notice for Respondent No. 1. The writ petition was heard with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The first petitioner was an employee of the A.P.S.R.T.C. and he worked as Conductor. He was retired on medical ground with effect from 9-2-1994. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. Under certain circulars issued by the Management of the A.P.S.R.T.C, the first petitioner sought appointment to his son the second petitioner by submitting a representation dt. 8-9-1994. It seems that the first petitioner was an employee of the Tirupathi Tirumala Devasthanam to begin with. However under a scheme he opted to join the services of the Corporation and with such joining the relationship of employer and employed got severed.

(3.) The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to appoint his son in a suitable post on the basis of his educational qualification and in accordance with the circulars of the Corporation. The writ does not lie in so far as the first respondent-Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam is concerned inasmuch as there is no relationship of employer and employed. Mandamus cannot be issued against the respondents 2 to 5 in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in General Manager vs. Rangachari; Dasaratha Rama Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; Miss P.S. Geeta and others vs. Central Bankof India, Bombay and another and the recent judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Shaik Ahmad Ali Shah vs. Divl. Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. and another. No writ of mandamus can be issued to a public authority to violate the law which includes the law declared by the Constitutional Courts. No case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.