2011 (3) TMI 1588 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there is a serious dispute with regard to the management and the administration of the affairs of the Temple?

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
2. Legality of the extension of service granted to the appellant.
3. Applicability of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989.
4. Allegations of mismanagement and embezzlement of Temple funds.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
The appellant argued that the writ petition should have been dismissed at the threshold as it pertained to a service matter, which cannot be filed as a PIL. The Court emphasized that PILs should not be used to pursue personal vendettas or for achieving oblique motives. The Court noted, "The High Court has committed a serious error in permitting respondent No.1 to pursue the writ petition as a public interest litigation." The respondent failed to demonstrate any special concern or credentials to justify the PIL, merely stating that he was a devotee of Lord Venkateswara. The Court reiterated that PILs must be filed by bona fide litigants and not by individuals with hidden motives.

2. Legality of the extension of service granted to the appellant:
The High Court had nullified the extension of the appellant's service based on Rule 13 of the 1989 Rules, which prohibits re-employment beyond the age of 60. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its interpretation. The Court observed, "The High Court, in our opinion, was in error, in relying on Rule 13 to nullify the appointment of the appellant." The appellant was engaged on a contractual basis, and Rule 2 of the 1989 Rules explicitly states that these rules do not apply to officers or staff taken on contract basis or on deputation from the Government or other organizations.

3. Applicability of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989:
The Supreme Court clarified that the 1989 Rules do not apply to employees engaged on a contractual basis. Rule 2 states, "They shall apply to every employee of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams except to the officers or staff taken on contract basis and officers or staff taken on deputation from the Government or other organization." The appellant's service was extended on a contractual basis, and thus, the High Court's application of Rule 13 was incorrect.

4. Allegations of mismanagement and embezzlement of Temple funds:
The respondent claimed that the appellant was involved in the mismanagement and embezzlement of Temple funds, specifically mentioning the loss of 300 gold dollars. The Court, however, did not find it necessary to make any observations on these allegations, stating, "It is also not necessary to make any observations with regard to the involvement or otherwise of the appellant in any activities which may invite either adverse comments or disciplinary actions." The Court noted that separate proceedings were pending in different courts regarding these issues and should not be confused with the subject matter of the writ petition.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, allowing the appeal. The Court directed the Board to consider granting the appellant further extension to compensate for the loss of service since 28th April, 2010. The Court emphasized the importance of recording reasons in judgments and criticized the High Court for not meeting this requirement. The appeal was allowed with the observation, "The order passed by the High Court does not satisfy the bare minimum requirements as indicated above. In view of the above, we have no option but to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court."

← Previous Next →