Public interest litigation cannot be used to challenge a private service dispute, and contractual staff may fall outside age-bar rules.

A writ petition cannot be maintained as public interest litigation to attack a service matter unless the petitioner shows bona fide public interest, proper locus and no hidden motive; a private employment grievance dressed as PIL falls outside public interest jurisdiction. The commentary also notes that where service rules expressly exclude contractual appointees from their operation, a general age-based bar on continuation or re-employment cannot be applied to such contractual engagement. The governing rule must be read as a whole, and an exclusion clause will prevent the general restriction from extending to contract staff.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition styled as public interest litigation could be maintained to challenge the appellant's extension in service; (ii) whether Rule 13 of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989 applied to the appellant's contractual engagement so as to bar continuation beyond the age of sixty years.

Issue (i): whether a writ petition styled as public interest litigation could be maintained to challenge the appellant's extension in service.

Analysis: The challenge related to a service matter concerning the appellant's contractual continuance with the Temple. The Court found that the writ petition had been dressed up as public interest litigation although the petitioner had not shown any special concern, bona fide public interest, or proper credentials. A pure service dispute could not be converted into a PIL, particularly where the pleadings indicated the presence of hidden interests and oblique motives. Public interest jurisdiction is meant to remedy genuine public wrongs and not private grievances or vendettas.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained as a public interest litigation and was liable to be rejected at the threshold.

Issue (ii): whether Rule 13 of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Employees Service Rules, 1989 applied to the appellant's contractual engagement so as to bar continuation beyond the age of sixty years.

Analysis: Rule 2 of the 1989 Rules expressly excluded officers or staff taken on contract basis and those taken on deputation from their operation. The appellant's post-retirement continuance was on contract basis, and therefore the general prohibition in Rule 13 against continuation after sixty years did not govern his engagement. The High Court had proceeded on an incomplete reading of the rules.

Conclusion: Rule 13 did not apply to the appellant's contractual appointment, and the High Court's reliance on it was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment could not stand, as the petition was not maintainable in the guise of public interest litigation and the rule invoked by the High Court did not cover the appellant's contractual engagement.

Ratio Decidendi: A service dispute cannot be entertained as a public interest litigation in the absence of bona fide public interest and proper locus, and a rule governing re-employment of employees does not apply where the governing service rules expressly exclude contractual engagements.

---