P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Dr. S. Dattatreya Rao and others, the writ petitioners in W.P. No. 9915 of 2001, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition dated 19-8-2003 had preferred the present writ appeal. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to impose ban on private practice by the Ayurvedic College and hospitals of R-2 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to restrain them from imposing such ban and to pass such suitable orders. The learned Single Judge disposed of writ petition, while vacating the interim order, directing the respondents to consider the issue of payment of private practice allowance. The said order of learned Single Judge is assailed in this writ appeal.
2. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy representing Sri B. Narayana Reddy, the Counsel for appellants-petitioners made the following submissions:
3. The learned Counsel would contend that the appellants also are governed by the rules and regulations as are applicable to the Government Servants and the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989, (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Rules' for the purpose of convenience). The Counsel also contended that these doctors are also the teaching staff of the Ayurvedic College and by virtue of Rule 9 of the Rules, the Rules are applicable as in case of Universities inclusive of N.T.R. Health University. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 4 and Rule 9 of the said Rules. The Counsel also with all emphasis would maintain that Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Board (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Board' for the purpose of convenience) has no power, authority or jurisdiction to make any resolution in this regard, especially contrary to the provisions of A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, Act 30 of 1987 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience) and the rules made thereunder. The Counsel also submitted that the ban imposed in fact was kept in abeyance. The attention of the Court was drawn to Sections 95, 97-B and 153 of the Act. The Counsel would maintain that the prior resolutions, inclusive of the Resolution No. 715, dated 25-2-1986 cannot be sustained since such ban cannot be imposed by virtue of a resolution by the Board. The Counsel concluded that inasmuch as the same service conditions applicable to Government Servants and persons working in teaching institutions are to be made applicable to the appellants-petitioners the resolutions of the Board are of no consequence and hence the writ petitioners-appellants are bound to succeed.
4. Per contra Sri Ramalingeswara Rao, the learned Counsel representing Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams would contend that in the light of the clear language of Section 97 of the Act and Rule 5 of the Rules, the Board is definitely empowered to take policy decisions in public interest and hence the said power cannot be doubted in any way. The learned Counsel also explained the object behind the imposition of this ban and would contend that the Board is well within its authority in making such resolutions, which are valid, and hence the Writ Appeal is bound to fail.
5. The facts in nutshell are as hereunder:
6. The appellants filed Writ Petition No. 9915 of 2001 for the reliefs referred to supra. Appellants-petitioners are employees of R-3 College and they had been practising in Ayurvedic Medicine. It is their case that Respondents 2 and 3 have been following the rules and service conditions stipulated by 1st respondent to their counter parts in the Government. It was stated that the 1st respondent imposed ban on Government Doctors, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy from undertaking private practice vide their order in G.O. Ms. No. 254 M&H;, dated 29-4-1983 and as a measure of compensation, payment of Non Private Practice Allowance (NPPA) was provided for at various rates by virtue of orders in G.O. Ms. No. 454, dated 1-10-1987. Subsequent thereto, 1st respondent issued G.O. Ms. No. 25, dated 16-1-1988 keeping the said orders in abeyance and in view of the same, there is no ban imposed on private practice of Ayurvedic doctors in Government service to undertake private practice. It was further stated that by resolution dated 21-1-1991 the 2nd respondent had resolved to follow the service conditions of the Ayurvedic doctors in Government. The 3rd respondent issued Circular Roc.No. C1/56/SVAYC/TPT/ 2001, dated 2-5-2001, wherein it was stated that the 2nd respondent had issued orders of ban on private practice by Ayurvedic doctors. Since the service conditions as on today do not contain any such ban, there is no legality in imposition of such ban. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams had taken a stand that way back in 1971, the management had thought it fit not to allow private practice of Medical Officers working in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams as they have to keep in view the welfare of the pilgrims, public and employees at large who may require their services even at odd hours. Accordingly, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams passed Resolution No. 1021 dated 31-12-1971 banning private practice by the Medical Officers and this resolution has no bearing on the policy decision of the Government. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams had issued a circular in Roc No. B3/37902/71, dated 30-11-1982 in pursuance of Resolution No. 1021 dated 30-24971 prohibiting all the doctors working in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams from doing private practice including consultation keeping in view of the sanctioned allowance of Rs. 75/- per month with effect from 1-1-1972. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 254, dated 29-4-1983, G.O. Ms. No. 256, dated 29-4-1983 and G.O. Ms. No. 450, dated 28-9-1987, imposing a total ban on the private practice of the Government doctors of the A.P. Indian Medicine and Homeopathy services. The writ petition filed by the said Government doctors failed and the said ban came into force. However, the Government thought it fit to grant NPPA to all categories of the doctors in the Indian Medicine and A.P. Homeopathic services and accordingly issued G.O. Ms. No. 454, dated 1-10-1987. The said G.O. was adopted by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams by Resolution No. 890, dated 23-1-1988. Subsequently, the said order of Government was kept in abeyance under G.O. Ms. No. 25, dated 16-1-1988. However, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams continued to pay NPPA as incentive by virtue of Resolution No. 428 dated 20-8-1992. The said decision was taken in view of the objections raised by the audit on the ground that G.O. Ms. No. 453, dated 1-10-1987 was quashed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. Thus, the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams as a matter of policy has been implementing the ban on private practice by the doctors and paying NPPA independently of the decision of the Government in this regard.
7. It was also stated by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams that as on today Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Science (SVIMS), Balaji Institute of Research and Rehabilitation for Disabled (BIRRD), Central Hospital are under the control of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams apart from S.V.Ayurvedic College which also runs a hospital. There is a total ban on the private practice in all the institutions and in fact, 14 doctors including one of the writ petitioners V. Sitaram made a representation on 12-3-2003 for imposing ban on private practice in the S.V.Ayurvedic College and for payment of N.P.P.A. Subsequent to the final order in Writ Petition No. 9915 of 2001, dated 19-8-2003, the Devasthanam Educational Officer issued proceedings Roc.No. D6/10685/DEO/2001, dated 18-10-2003 granting NPPA to the doctors of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Ayurvedic College. The ban on private practice of doctors working under Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams is an independent decision of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Management keeping in view the welfare of the pilgrims, public and the employees and it has been in vogue since 1971. It was further stated that the then Executive Officer of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams made a routine inspection of the institutions including the Medical College of S.V.Ayurvedic College and noticed that the Medical Officers are doing private practice and hence instructed the Principal to take suitable action and the Principal in turn issued a Circular Roc.No. C1/5 6/SVAYC/TPT/2001, dated 2-5-2001 bringing to the notice of all the faculty members of the college and hospital to follow the ban on the private practice. Subsequent thereto, when the present writ appeal is pending, it was thought fit to review the issue relating to the application of ban on private practice by the Medical Officers working in the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Institutions including S.V.Ayurvedic College and accordingly the matter was placed before the Board and Resolution Nos.766, dated 24 & 25-2-2004, was passed confirming the earlier resolution of ban on private practice by the Medical Officers in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Institutions on payment of NPPA.
8. The principal stand taken by the learned Counsel representing the appellants/petitioners is that the Board has no authority, right or jurisdiction to impose such a ban by virtue of a resolution especially in view of the fact that these resolutions are contrary to the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The Counsel placed strong reliance on Rules 4 and 9 in this regard. The Counsel also had placed strong reliance on Resolution No. 881, dated 21-1-1991 and the said resolution was passed by the Education Section in Roc.No. D6/48043/89, which reads as hereunder:
'Education Section Item No: 881ROC NO.D6/48043/89 Page No: 275Sub: TTD Educational Institutions, S.V. Ayurvedic College Adoption of G.O. Ms. No. 204 dated 17-3-1987 of HM&FW; (12) Dept. of recruitment rules-Regarding.
Ref:1. Res.No. 715 dated 25-2-1986 based on ROCNO. D6/4469/85.
2. Proposal of Principal ROC No. C1/81/ SVAYa90 dated 20-11-1990.
The S.VAyurvedic College, Tirupati started functioning from 21-1-1983 as resolved by the Management Committee, TTD in its res. No. 730 dated 29-12-1982.
The Ayurvedic education is controlled throughout the country by the Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCI), New Delhi. The Ayurvedic Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh are under the control of Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
As per G.O. Ms. No. 1060 dated 24-10-1989 of Revenue (Endt.1) Department under Rule 9(i) for recruitment of teaching staff of educational institutions 'affiliated to any of the University or any Government the rules of such University or such Government as the case may be in respect of qualifications, age, method of recruitment pay and allowances, vacation, leave salary, TA and age of retirement shall apply'.
The college is affiliated to University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, in his Letter No. 1691/Aa/87 dated 26-9-1990 the Registrar informed that the college has to follow the instructions of the Director of Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy for recruitments and promotion of the staff of S.V.Ayurvedic College.
The Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy has issued G.O. Ms. No. 129 M&H; Department dated 27-2-1981 for recruitment of the staff of Ayurvedic College, these rules were adopted in T.T.D. Res.No. 715 dated 25, February, 1986.
But in reply to D.O.Roc.No. D6/4469/85, dated 11-7-1987 the Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy in his Letter No. 16237/ Ayu.1/87 dated 22-7-1987 while communicating the extracts of G.O. Ms. No. 129 M&H; Dept, dated 27-2-1981 for recruitment of posts of Principal/Professor etc., of Ayurveda and G.O. Ms. No. 204 HM & FW dated 17-3-1987 desired that the rules may be adopted for recruitment of the staff of S.V.Ayurvedic College also. The G.O's are comprehensive covering rules of recruitment of staff of Ayurvedic and Unani.
In view of the above, the matter is placed before the Board of Trustees, TTD for adoption of G.O. Ms. No. 129 M&H; (12), dated 27-2-1981 and G.O. Ms. No. 204 dated 17-3-1987 for recruitments and promotion of the staff of S.V.Ayurvedic College, in as far as they are relevant to the S.V.Ayurvedic College. Further it is also proposed for adoption that amendments and changes in rules if any are issued from time to time, the rules shall also be deemed to have been amended to that effect.
APPROVED
Resolution No: 881 dated 21-1-1991'
9. The National importance of the abode of Lord Venkateswara and the administration of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams need not be over emphasized, as the same is well known. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams was governed by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Act, 1933, Act 19 of 1933 which was repealed by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. Subsequent thereto, the institution was governed by the provisions of Act 17 of 1966. But however, the Government thought it fit to separate the institution and hence Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Act, 1979, Act 20 of 1979 was enacted. However, in view of the recommendations of Justice Kondayya's Commission, Act 20 of 1979 was repealed and Chapter 14 was introduced in the present Act, Act 30 of 1987. Section 153 of the present Act deals with the power to make rules. The rules in G.O. Ms. No. 1060, Revenue (Endowments-I), dated 24-10-1989 were published in R.S. to Part I, (Ext.) A.P. Gazette, dated 26-10-1989. Rule 4 and Rule 9 of the Rules read as hereunder;
'Rule 4: The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams employees shall be governed by the following rules and such of the orders and clarifications issued on these rules by Government of Andhra Pradesh in respect of the employees of State Government from time to time insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Act and the Rules made thereunder:
(i) the Fundamental Rules and the Subsidiary Rules issued thereunder;
(ii) the Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules 1933;
(iii) the Andhra Pradesh Manual of Special Pay and Allowances including Travelling Allowances Rules and the Subsidiary Rules issued thereunder;
(iv) the Andhra Pradesh Pension Code and the Andhra Pradesh Liberalised Pension Rules, 1961; A.P. Family Pension Rules, 1964 and A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
(v) the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964;
(vi) the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1963;
(vii) the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules;
(viii) the Andhra Pradesh Financial Code;
(ix) any other executive instructions and Government orders that are issued from time to time by the Government in respect of their employees which are not inconsistent with the Act and Rules made thereunder.
Rule 9: Appointment and method of recruitment:--
(i) The method of recruitment for appointment, qualifications and the age prescribed for various posts shall be as specified against each post in Annexure-II to these rules:
Provided that in case of teaching staff of Educational Institutions affiliated to any University or any Government, the rules of such University or such Government as the case may be, in respect of qualifications, age, method of recruitment, pay and allowances, vacation, leave salary, travelling allowance and age of retirement shall apply.
(ii) The Service shall consists of the posts under various branches specified in Annexure-I to these Rules.
(iii) The rule relating to selection of candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange under the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 and rules of reservation shall not apply in respect of posts in Annexure-III to these rules, in view of the peculiar nature of those posts. However, a formal notification to the Employment Exchange shall be made complying with the provisions of the said Act.
(iv) All posts carrying the scale of payoff Assistant Executive Officer or an identical pay scale and above including Technical category posts shall be selection posts.
(v) Promotion to the selection category posts shall be on grounds of merit and ability, seniority, being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal.
(vi) Appointment to any of the categories of posts in Annexure-n exception the case of Teaching Institutions shall be made only from among persons professing Hindu Religion.
(vii) The posts under various branches in these rules where the method of recruitment is both by direct recruitment and by promotion the ratio among the direct recruits and promotees shall be the same as in the State Government or corresponding posts in the respective services except in cases where the ratio has been prescribed in the Annexure.
(viii) Omitted by G.O. Ms. No. 484, Revenue, dated 7-6-1997, with effect from 13-12-1995
On the strength of these Rules, a contention was advanced that the Board has no power to make a resolution imposing such ban referred to supra. Section 95 of the Act deals with application of the Act to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. Section 96 of the Act deals with Constitution of Board. Section 97 of the Act deals with Powers and functions of the Board. No doubt reliance was placed on the language employed in Section 97-B i.e., 'subject to the provisions of this Act and the Rules made thereunder'. It is pertinent to note that Section 97-B deals with powers and functions of Committee and Section 97-A deals with Constitution of Committee. Hence, this may not be of any help to the appellants. Section 97 of the Act dealing with Powers and functions of the Board, reads as hereunder:
'Section 97: Powers and functions of the Board:--The Board shall in addition to the powers conferred and functions entrusted to it by this Act, exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed in regard to matters of policy and general superintendence and review in relation to the Administration of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams having due regard to public interest and the services and amenities to be provided to and welfare and safety measures to be undertaken for the pilgrims, devotees and worshippers resorting to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams.' Rule 5 of the Rules reads as hereunder:
'Rule 5:(i) All powers assigned to the Government under the aforesaid rules shall be exercised by the Board of Trustees. All powers vested in the Head of the Department in the above rules shall be exercised by the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams. The Executive Officer shall be the appointing authority in respect of all posts except the posts for which Government is the appointing authority.
(ii) The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams shall be the controlling and counter signing Officer in regard to the Travelling Allowance Files including the journeys performed outside the State of Andhra Pradesh of all the employees of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams including Officers on Foreign Service to Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams.
(iii) The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams shall be the competent authority to sanction pension including Family Pension, Gratuity and other terminal benefits in respect of all the employees of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams.
(iv) The Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer appointed shall be the verifying officer in respect of the amount of pension including Family Pension, Gratuity etc., admissible.
(v) All employees of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, except those on part-time basis, consolidated pay, personnel on Nominal Muster Rolls, Daily Wages, casual labourers and on contract, basis, are eligible for pension, gratuity, family pension, etc., and are entitled to receive them subject to the provisions contained in Pension Rules.'
A careful reading of the different provisions of the Act and the Rules would definitely go to show that the Board is empowered to take such policy decision of imposition of ban in public interest though an attempt was made to show that the resolutions are contrary to the Act under Rules, except stating that the Government rules and the rules relating to the teaching staff of the Universities alone are applicable, no apparent conflict could be pointed out in this regard by the learned Counsel for the appellants so as to arrive at a conclusion that these resolutions cannot be sustained. In fact, one of us (P.S. Narayana, J) while dealing with the aspect of 'policy' and 'policy decision' in Rev., K.P. Luther Babu v. Rev. J. Vijayarathnam and Anr., : 2004(3)ALD509 , had observed :
'It is difficult to precisely define the expression 'policy decision' and equally so, the expression 'public policy' as held in Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam, : [1971]3SCR693 , and P. Rathinam; Nagbhusan Patnaik v. Union of India, : 1994CriLJ1605 . It is no doubt true that in the present context, this Court is not concerned with 'public policy', but is concerned only with words 'policy' and 'policy decision.' The Chambers English Dictionary, New Edition, defines 'policy' as:
'a course of action, especially one based on some declared or respected principle, a system of administration guided more by interest than by principle; the art of Government statecraft; dexterity of management........' The New Oxford Dictionary of English defines 'policy' as hereunder:
'a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a Government, party, business or individual: the Government's controversial economic policies......' West's Legal Thesaurus defines 'policy' as hereunder:
'1.The general principles by which an organization is guided and managed (public policy). Guidelines, goals, platform, approach, tenets, creed, beliefs, directions, scheme, habit, tactic, style, management, design, strategy, line, policy, proposal, protocol........' Wharton 's Law Lexicon defines 'policy' as hereunder:
'the general principles by which a Government is guided in its management of public affairs, or the Legislature in its measures.....' Black 's Law Dictionary, sixth edition defines 'policy' as hereunder:
'the general principles by which a Government is guided in its management of public affairs, or the Legislature in its measures.......
This term, as applied to a law, ordinance, or rule of law, denotes its general purpose or tendency considered as directed to the welfare or prosperity of the State or community............'
Thus, the expression 'policy' may be understood as a scheme of governance. Policy decision in relation to SALC may be understood as a decision of the governing body in relation to a particular occupation falling under the head of policy to be uniformly administered and implemented. It is no doubt true that many a time, it would be very difficult to draw a clear dividing line between policy decisions, mere administrative decisions or managerial decisions. Policy decisions and the scope of judicial review in the realm of administrative law had been dealt with by the Apex Court in Union of India v. International Trading Company, 2003 (4) Supreme 114 and in State of Orissa v. Mangalam Timber Products Limited, 2003 (8) Supreme 65. In N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, 2003 (6) Supreme 572, though policy decision was not defined, decision to under take a project was held to be a policy decision.'
10. In light of the clear stand taken by Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and especially in view of the language which is employed in Section 97 of the Act which is wide enough to include the power to make such resolutions relating to policy decisions of this nature, especially in the interest of the public, the power of the Board to make such resolutions, imposing ban cannot be doubted in any way whatsoever.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeal is bound to fail. Accordingly, the same shall stand dismissed. No costs.