WP/19742/2021 of K.S. Amarnath, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 January 2026

1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent:

1. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) Between: C Niranjan Babu ...PETITIONER AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS WRIT PETITION NO: 8801/2021 Between: C Niranjan Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS WRIT PETITION NO: 19742/2021 Between: K.s. Amarnath, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. C SINDHU KUMARI

2. GP FOR SERVICES I

WRIT PETITION NO: 19746/2021 Between: Pottenala Krishna Veni and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 19756/2021 Between: Subramanyam Kallupalli and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

WRIT PETITION NO: 19817/2021 Between: Pasam Madhavi and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 20209/2021 Between: Madhuranthakam Jayanthi, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

WRIT PETITION NO: 20896/2021 Between: G Muni Prathap and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 21358/2021 Between: C.munisekhar, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. G RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

3. C SINDHU KUMARI (SC FOR A P INFOR COMM)

WRIT PETITION NO: 22412/2021 Between: S.chinna Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 22634/2021 Between: S V Gomatha Workers Society and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU

2. AKA VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

WRIT PETITION NO: 23090/2021 Between: K Gopal Singh and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 23719/2021 Between: N. Gopinath and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent:

1. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 23800/2021 Between: S. Surekha and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent:

1. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 24266/2021 Between: P Chinnabba and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Sri Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent(S):

WRIT PETITION NO: 24444/2021 Between: E Muni Kannaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent:

1. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 25132/2021 Between: Kumar Kottee and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. MAJJI VENKATA DIVYA HARITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2. C SRINIVASA BABA WRIT PETITION NO: 26049/2021

Between: B Gurukumar Reddy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Y V ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

WRIT PETITION NO: 27187/2021 Between: P Vasu and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. MAJJI VENKATA DIVYA HARITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 28271/2021 Between: K Rajagopal and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. MAJJI VENKATA DIVYA HARITHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 29264/2021 Between: C Amaravathi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 29374/2021 Between: Paturu Kodandaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 30637/2021 Between:

Y Subaramanayam and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

WRIT PETITION NO: 30708/2021 Between: Votra Lavanya and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. Y V ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

WRIT PETITION NO: 31017/2021 Between: Mallikarjuna Chinthamani and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. Y V ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 1202/2022 Between: K Arumugam and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

WRIT PETITION NO: 1597/2022 Between: P Raghunadha Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent:

1. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

WRIT PETITION NO: 2710/2022 Between: P Srihari and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent:

1. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 3212/2022 Between: K.appi Reddy, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. A SUMANTH ( SC FOR TTD)

WRIT PETITION NO: 5856/2022 Between: K.s. Amarnath, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 6237/2022 Between: Thondati Jyothi and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

WRIT PETITION NO: 7368/2022 Between: R. Krishnan, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

WRIT PETITION NO: 8577/2022 Between: D Sankar and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent:

1. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

WRIT PETITION NO: 10027/2022 Between: M. Bhaskar ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. AKA VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

WRIT PETITION NO: 22474/2022

Between: Pottenala Krishna Veni and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

WRIT PETITION NO: 33376/2022 Between: Parnasyala Vijay Kumar and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD) WRIT PETITION NO: 7770/2023 Between: Subramanyam Kallupalli and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. Y V ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

3. RATHANGA PANI REDDY K (STANDING COUNSEL FOR TIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS)

WRIT PETITION NO: 12841/2023 Between: R Divya and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

WRIT PETITION NO: 12850/2023 Between: G Muni Prathap and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES II

2. V.DYUMANI (SC for TTD)

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA W.P. NOS: 8801, 19742, 19746, 19756, 19817, 20209, 20896, 21358, 22412, 22634, 23090, 23719, 23800, 24266, 24444, 25132, 26049, 27187, 28271, 29264, 29374, 30637, 30708, 31017 of 2021, W.P. NOS.1202, 1597, 2710, 3212, 5856, 6237, 7368, 8577, 10027, 22474, 33376, 39457 of 2022, W.P.NOS.7770, 12841, 12850 of 2023

COMMON ORDER:-

Heard learned Senior Counsels Sri J. Sudheer and Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, for the writ petitioners and Ms. V. Dyumani, learned Standing Counsel for Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD), appearing for the respondents.

2. Issue involved in all the above Writ Petitions is common. Therefore it is considered appropriate to dispose of all the Writ Petitions through this ‘Common Order’.

3. The petitioners in the above Writ Petitions are working with Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam in different capacities on a full-time basis. The instant Writ Petitions are filed seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent for payment of the minimum time scale attached to the respective posts and for regularization of their services.

4. The contention of the petitioners is that they were appointed against sanctioned posts after following a due selection process. It is further contended that the TTD, after selecting the candidates and subjecting them to regular training, handed them over to an outsourcing agency in order to escape the liability of paying the time scale attached to the posts and to continue them in the capacity of contractual employees. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nihal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others and the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.4964 of 1989 and 5476 of 1989 contends that they are entitled for regularization of their services.

5. In W.P.No.39457 of 2022, the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam filed a counter affidavit contending that it is bound by the Rules relating to regularization framed under G.O.Ms. No.1090, dated 24.10.1989. It is further contended that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization, having regard to the fact that the petitioners were not appointed by following the procedure for regular recruitment and that their services were availed through a private agency. It is further contended that in view of agreement with TTD by the service provider for supply of manpower and the clauses contained therein, the petitioner cannot be considered as an employee of TTD, as there is no master and servant relationship between the writ petitioners and the TTD.

6. In W.P.No.3337 of 2022, the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioners were not appointed by TTD through any selection process and that they did not possess the requisite qualifications for the posts in which they claim to be working. It is denied that a selection committee was duly constituted or that any selection procedure was followed for their appointment. It is further stated that the petitioners cannot compare themselves with persons working in Gosamrakshana Shaala or with drivers in the Transport Department. Since they were not appointed through a selection process, they are not entitled to regularization on the pretext of the length of service rendered by them. As TTD did not have any opportunity to examine the suitability of the petitioners for the posts in question, the petitioners cannot seek regularization of their services.

7. The learned Senior Counsel Sri J. Sudheer, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nihal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others1, contends that the respondents having extracted work for all these years on payment of meagre salaries, cannot take undue advantage of their economic status and expect them to work for the same meagre payments. It is further argued that TTD, which is a Hindu religious institution existing for propagation of Dharma, is expected to ensure that justice is done to its employees in all respects.

8. The learned Senior Counsel further places reliance on the judgment of the erstwhile composite High Court of Hyderabad in W.P.Nos.4964 & 5476

1 (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 65

of 1989 and contends that TTD is an independent body and is not obligated to obtain approval from the state government for all its orders/proceedings.

9. The learned Senior Counsel further places reliance on the decision of this Court in W.A.Nos.361 of 2018 & Batch & W.P.Nos.11233 of 2016 & 25754 of 2017, seeks regularization of the services.

10. The learned Senior Counsel Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.19742 & Batch, places reliance on the following judgments:- i) The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal and Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad2 , as observed as under: “13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.”

2 2025 SCC Online SC 221

ii) The decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others3, and in the case of Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & another4, iii) And the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.29403 & 38488 of 2018 dated 03.04.2018, and further places reliance on the proceedings of the TTD dated 26.12.2022, whereby the services of TTD Forest Workers were regularized.

11. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

12. Having regard to the contentions advanced, I am afraid that the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.11233 of 2016 & 25754 of 2017 would not be applicable to the instant case. Having regard to the fact that in said cases, TTD had invited applications for engaging the tonsurers after constituting a committee, it had allowed them to render services on piece rate basis. The subsequent appointment in the said category were also through a selection committee constituted in the said regard, this Court had taken into consideration the factum of the cadre strength fixed, this Court had observed that the TTD is not subordinate to the State government, therefore it need not seek permission from 3 2024 Online SC 3826 4 2025 AIR (SC) 3897

the government on the issue of regularizing in as much as the cadre strength had already been fixed.

13. Whereas in the facts of these cases, the petitioners are claiming to be working in various capacities as shown below in the tabular columns: SL. No. W.P. NOS. No. of Petitioners Nature of Work

1. 10027/2022

Contract Labour

2. Kitchen Helpers/Cooks

3. 12841/2023

Data Entry Operator/ Data Processing Officers

4. 12850/2023

Data Entry Operators/ Data Processing Officers

5. Vahanam Bearers

6. 19742/2021

Private Security Guards

7. 19746/2021

Data Entry Operators

8. 19756/2021

Private Security Guards

9. 19817/2021

Data Entry Operators

10. 20209/2021

Private Security Guards

11. 20896/2021

CCTV Operators/ Data Entry Operators

12. 21358/2021

Drivers

13. 22412/2021

Umbrella Holders/ Divity Mans

14. 22474/2022

Data Entry Operators/Data processing Officers

15. 22634/2021

Contract Labourers

16. 23090/2021

Gurkha Security Supervisors/ Security Guards

17. 23719/2021

Typists/ Computer Operators

18. 23800/2021

DTP Operators

19. 24266/2021

Melam Staff working at Narayanam/ Attenders

20. 24444/2021

Music Artists in Annamacharya Project

21. 25132/2021

Gardeners

22. 26049/2021

DTP Operator

23. Tonsures in Kalyanakatta

24. 27187/2021

Hostel Workers

25. 28271/2021

Attenders

26. 29264/2021

Contract Worker

27. 29374/2021

Private Contractors

28. 30637/2021

Private Contractors

29. 30708/2021

Staff Nurses

30. 31017/2021

Mechanics and Cleaners

31. Drivers

32. 33376/2022

Prasadam Distributers

33. 39457/2022

Vahana Bearer

34. Private Security Guards

35. Private Contractors

36. Medical Staff

37. Private Security Guards

38. Tonsures in Kalyanakatta

39. Offset Assistant

14. It is not clear as to the cadre strength of each of the categories and the nature of the duties that each of the petitioners has been rendering. This Court is not inclined to grant a blanket direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners, in as much as regularization requires and involves comprehensive verification with regard to the date of joining of duty, the number of years or days the petitioners have worked in TTD, and the number of sanctioned posts of each of the category.

15. In view of the above, placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Others, and Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & another and further placing reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos.29403 and 38488 of 2018 dated 03.04.2018, the Writ Petitions are disposed of granting liberty to each of the petitioners to file a separate representation seeking Regularization of their services/Minimum Time Scale, before the 2nd respondent – Board, mentioning the date of appointment and furnishing details regarding the duties discharged by them, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representations, the 2nd respondent – Board, after calling for necessary reports, if any, from the Executive Officer of TTD, shall pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) months thereafter.

16. Till final orders are passed on the representations to be filed by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent shall continue the services of the petitioners, if they are presently continuing, and shall continue to pay the minimum time scale as directed by this Court in earlier interim orders. During the pendency of consideration of the representations, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps to discontinue the services of the petitioners.

17. With the above observation, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Date:23.01.2026 MVK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

W.P. NOS: 8801, 19742, 19746, 19756, 19817, 20209, 20896, 21358, 22412, 22634, 23090, 23719, 23800, 24266, 24444, 25132, 26049, 27187, 28271, 29264, 29374, 30637, 30708, 31017of 2021, W.P. NOS.1202, 1597, 2710, 3212, 5856, 6237, 7368, 8577, 10027, 22474, 33376, 39457 of 2022, W.P.NOS.7770 12841, 12850 of 2023

Date:23.01.2026 MVK