C SRINIVASULU Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TTD
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS, TIRUPATI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)Question here involved is squarely covered by Division Bench ruling of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 36/92 dated 9th March, 1992. Learned Counsel, however, submits that the said decision needs to be reconsidered.
(2.)Hearing Counsel on either side at some length and going through the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India vs. N. Hargopal, we see no justification for reconsidering the aforesaid Division Bench ruling of this Court. In fact, this very Supreme Court ruling has been referred to in the above judgment and constitutes one of the bases of the said judgment.
(3.)Respondent-Devasthanam was perfectly within its right while recruiting attenders to state that only those sponsored by the Employment Exchange will be considered. This in a way regulates the mode of recruitment and eliminates to the extent reasonably possible element of arbitrariness in the matter of recruitment and appointment. As observed by this Court in the Division Bench ruling supra,-
".... The stand of the De vasthanam has been that, as and when it becomes necessary to appoint Attenders in Class - IV category, the procedure followed is to notify the vacancies of the posts and consider only those who are sponsored by the Employment Exchange. We see nothing illegal or invalid therein. On the contrary, it regulates the process of recruitment and reduces to the minimum, if not extinguishes, the scope for any arbitrariness in the matter of such appointments."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.