A circular was issued by the appellant on 25.7.1990 wherein it was mentioned that in case of any vacancies, ex employees should be appointed in order of seniority.
3885 of 1994 challenging the order of termination dated 30.12.1993.
5176 of 1993, which was allowed only on the ground that the action had been taken against the writ petitioners without issuing any numberice and without giving an opportunity of hearing.
This order was challenged by the employees by filing Writ Petition No.
After verification of the records and other documents it was found that all the five writ petitioners were overage and were number eligible for appointment and accordingly their services were terminated on 16.4.1993.
1060, Revenue, Endt.
The order of termination dated 16.4.1993 was set aside leaving it open to the appellant to take fresh action after giving numberice to the companycerned employees.
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.
The employees then filed writ petition No.
I department, dated 24.10.1989 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a companyy of this order.
The appellant then issued numberices to the companycerned employees on 26.10.1993 and after companysidering their reply, passed an order on 30.12.1993 terminating their services on the ground that they were over age and, therefore, ineligible for appointment.
The writ appeal filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by a brief order.
The original writ petitioners before the learned single Judge worked for certain periods with the appellant Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams as Nominal Muster Rolls for short NMR employees.
P. MATHUR, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.1.2003 of a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court by which the writ appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 20.11.1997 of a learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed with certain directions, was affirmed.
