2007 (5) TMI 594 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether writ petitioner No. 5 was entitled for exemption from the requirement of age limit having regard to certain GOs issued by the Revenue Department of the State Governments?

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of service rules regarding age eligibility for appointment.
2. Validity of exemption from eligibility criterion.
3. Authority to grant exemption from age qualification.
4. Legality of mandamus directing consideration for exemption.

Issue 1: Interpretation of service rules regarding age eligibility for appointment
The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989, specifically Rule 11, which stated that no person over 28 years of age is eligible for direct recruitment. The employees in question were appointed as Attenders despite being overage, leading to their subsequent termination. The High Court held that the appointments were illegal due to age ineligibility as per the rules.

Issue 2: Validity of exemption from eligibility criterion
The High Court directed the appellant to grant exemption from eligibility criteria in favor of the employees, citing instances where exemptions were previously granted. However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning untenable, emphasizing that past concessions did not confer a right to claim exemption as a matter of course. The Court referred to a previous case to support its position that concessions were discretionary and not legally binding.

Issue 3: Authority to grant exemption from age qualification
The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to consider granting exemption to one of the employees from the age limit requirement. The Supreme Court ruled that since there was no statutory provision for such exemptions, the mandamus was incorrectly issued. The Court highlighted the necessity of a legal duty and a corresponding legal right under a statute for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

Issue 4: Legality of mandamus directing consideration for exemption
Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court, concluding that the directions for exemption were legally unfounded. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition filed by the employees was dismissed. The Court emphasized that the rules did not provide for exemptions based on past practices or discretion, and thus the employees were ineligible for appointment due to age restrictions.

In summary, the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of service rules regarding age eligibility, rejected the validity of exemption based on past concessions, emphasized the lack of authority for granting exemptions, and deemed the mandamus for exemption consideration as legally erroneous.