Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam vs Balaji Barbers Association on 22 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)ALD331
JUDGMENT S.R. Nayak, J.
1. This writ appeal is filed by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (for short 'TTD') represented by its Executive Officer questioning the correctness of the order made by the learned single Judge dated 27-11-1997 in Writ Petition No. 20227 of 1996. The above writ petition was filed by the Balaji Barbers Association. In the writ petition mandamus was sought declaring the proposed action of the TTD administration in granting contract of Kalyana Katta to private contractors as illegal and without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction to the TTD administration to absorb the members of the petitioner-association as barbers in the service of TTD. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be summarized as follows:
2. The petitioner-association is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act bearing Registration No. 245/78. It has 251 members. The members of the petitioner-association carry on profession of barbers at Tirumala hills. The Government has issued G.O.Rt. No. 213, dated 12-2-1993 framing rules by virtue of the power vested in it under Section 153 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') governing recruitment to the post of barbers. The rules, so framed provide for two methods of recruitment to the post of barbers viz., (i) recruitment by securing sponsorship of the eligible candidates through the Employment Exchange and (ii) by selection of eligible candidates by issuing advertisement calling for applications from the public at large. The rules also prescribe passing of 8th class as the minimum qualification a candidate should possess. When the matter stood thus, according to the TTD administration, to meet the exigency, they resorted to engage the service of the barbers through private contractors. Under those circumstances the writ petition was filed praying for the relief already noticed above.
3. The learned Judge, having opined that the field of recruitment to the post of barber in the TTD administration is an occupied field in the sense that statutory rules are governing the field and the proposed impugned action of the TTD administration is contrary to the method of recruitment envisaged under the statutory rules, allowed the writ petition declaring that the resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of the TTD providing for engagement of barbers through private contractors is inconsistent with the rules framed in G.O.Rt No. 213, dated 12-2-1993. Hence, this writ appeal by the TTD.
4. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel for the TTD and the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-association. In our considered view, no exception can be taken to the opinion handed down by the learned Judge. It is well settled that when a field is occupied by law, the executive, by issuing administrative instructions, can only supplement the law existing but it cannot be permitted to supplant. Admittedly the field of recruitment of barbers in the TTD jurisdiction is governed by the statutory rules framed by the State Government by virtue of its rule making power under Section 153 of the Act. It is also admitted position that according to these rules recruitment to the post of barber could be effected only by two methods already referred to above. When the statutory rules specifically, without leaving any doubt in anybody's mind, provide for only two modes of recruitment, the impugned proposed action of the TTD administration to create one more mode of recruitment to the post of barbers cannot be treated to be supplemental to the mode of recruitment envisaged under the statutory rules. On the other hand, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned action of the TTD tantamount to supplant the statutory rules and such a thing is prohibited by the law of the land. In that view of the matter the learned Judge is fully justified in placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sant Ram v. State of Rajasthan, , wherein the Apex Court has held:
It is true that there is no specific provision in the rules laying down the principle of promotion of junior or senior grade officers to selection grade posts. But that does not mean [hat till statutory rules are framed in this behalf of the Government cannot issue administrative instructions regarding the principles to be followed in promotions of the officers concerned to selection grade posts. It is true that Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions, but if the rules are silent on any particular point Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed.
5. We do not find any substantive ground to interfere with the order of the learned Judge. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.