Later Policy Withdrawal Cannot Undo Employee’s Accrued Promotion Rights; Andhra Pradesh High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Subba Reddy Satti has set aside a show-cause notice issued by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams proposing to revert an employee from junior lecturer to his earlier post and has struck down the retrospective operation of a later board resolution withdrawing an earlier administrative decision that enabled the promotion. The dispute centred on whether the employer could undo a promotion after the employee had been appointed and had worked in the promoted post. The Court held that once a valid administrative grant of benefit or status is implemented, the right vests and cannot be divested by later policy withdrawal or administrative modification; any revision can operate only prospectively, without disturbing accrued rights.
The writ petition arose from a challenge to a resolution passed by the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Trust Board and a consequential show cause notice issued to an employee working as a Junior Lecturer in a college administered by the Devasthanams. The petitioner was initially appointed through direct recruitment to a non-teaching post in an institution maintained by the Devasthanams and subsequently acquired higher educational qualifications. Following a resolution of the Trust Board treating certain non-teaching and teaching posts as interchangeable, the petitioner was considered for promotion and was appointed as a Junior Lecturer after scrutiny by a Departmental Promotion Committee and approval by the Board of Intermediate Education.
Several years after the petitioner had been functioning in the promoted post, the Trust Board passed a subsequent resolution withdrawing the earlier resolution with retrospective effect. Acting upon this later resolution, the executive authority issued a show cause notice proposing to revert the petitioner to the earlier non-teaching post. The petitioner contended that the promotion had been granted in accordance with applicable service rules and government orders and that the subsequent withdrawal of the enabling resolution could not invalidate an appointment already made and acted upon. The respondents asserted that the earlier resolution had been passed without amending the service rules and that the Trust Board was competent to review and withdraw its resolutions.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and noted that the institution and its educational establishments were covered under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. Referring to the service rules framed under the said Act, the Court observed that “the Rules, 1989 would apply to all the employees of TTD except for the officers or staff taken on contract basis or deputation.”
On the nature of the institution where the petitioner originally worked, the Court relied on the statutory definition under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act and recorded that “even going by the contention of the learned standing counsel that S.V. Balamandir is an orphanage, it is still an educational institution.” The Court took note of documentary material showing interchangeability between certain non-teaching and teaching posts and stated that “Exs.P11 to P13 would demonstrate transfer of Matron and Secondary Grade Assistant and vice-versa.”
While acknowledging that the Trust Board possessed review powers under the statute, the Court clarified the limits of such power by observing that “a vested right cannot be divested or nullified by a subsequent administrative modification, withdrawal of policy, or reconsideration by the employer.” The Court further recorded that the petitioner’s promotion had been affected “by following the procedure contemplated under the Government Orders and with the approval of the Board of Intermediate Education.”
Relying on principles governing retrospectivity and vested rights, the Court observed that “withdrawal of the resolution, prompted by administrative inconvenience or apprehension of similar claims by others, cannot operate to the detriment of the petitioner.” It was also noted that there were “no allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or ineligibility on the part of the petitioner.”
The Court ordered that “the show cause notice vide Roc.No.Edn3/10466/Ser.III/2004 dated 12.12.2013 issued by the Deputy Executive Officer (Services), Office of Executive Officer, TTD Devasthanams, Tirupati is hereby set aside. Insofar as the TTD Board Resolution No.196, dated 11.11.2013, withdrawing the earlier resolution retrospectively is concerned, the same alone is set aside.”
“Since the promotion of the petitioner was affected by following the procedure, the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of,” and that “pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed,” with “no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri W. B. Srinivas, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri J. Sunil Kumar and Ms. Kavya
For the Respondents: Sri N. V. S. Prasada Varma, Standing Counsel; Government Pleader for School Education
Case Title: P. Priyavardhana Babu v. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams & Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010015382013
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 38268 of 2013
Bench: Justice Subba Reddy Satti
