Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.ANANDA REDDY
P.Venkatesh - Appellant
Versus
New India Assurance Co.Ltd - Respondent
Decided On : 07-28-99
PROMOTION - ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS - CUT-OFF DATE - VALIDITY - ARBITRARINESS - DISCRIMINATION - ARTICLE 14, 16, 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - FACTUAL MATRIX - HELD, FIXING OF CUT-OFF DATE FOR ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS AS 31ST DECEMBER OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS NOT UNREASONABLE OR ARBITRARY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the respondent company, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to add additional 3 marks for obtaining the LL. B. degree, contending that the promotion exercise-1998 to the post of senior assistant without awarding the said additional 3 marks to the petitioner is clearly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the fixation of a cut-off date can be regarded as arbitrary only if the fixation is "very wide off any reasonable mark." The court also observed that when a court is called upon to decide such a matter, mere errors are not subject to correction in the exercise of the power of judicial review; it is only its palpably arbitrary exercise which can be declared void.
Issues: 1. Whether the fixing of a cut-off date for academic qualifications as 31st December of the previous year is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to additional 3 marks for obtaining the LL. B. degree, despite the results being declared after the cut-off date?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the fixation of a cut-off date for academic qualifications as 31st December of the previous year is not unreasonable or arbitrary. The court reasoned that the respondent company is an all-India-based company, and different universities conduct their courses on different dates. Therefore, taking into account the usually conducting of the examinations in the first half of the year, they fixed the cut-off date as 31st December of the year. The court also noted that the said date is being followed without any deviations. 2. The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to additional 3 marks for obtaining the LL. B. degree, despite the results being declared after the cut-off date. The court reasoned that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualifications as on the last date of the applications, even though he subsequently acquired such qualification. Therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit or consideration.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.
( 1 ) THE writ petitioner, who is an employee of the 1st Respondent Company, is seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to add additional 3 marks for obtaining the LL. B. , degree holding that the promotion exercise-1998 to the post of senior Assistant without awarding the said additional 3 marks to the petitioner is clearly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is working in the category of Assistant in the 1st respondent company. He is entitled for promotion to the next post of Senior Assistant. While so there was a notice inviting applications by the 1st respondent for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants in respect of eight sanctioned vacancies. As per the said notification the last date for making application was 5-6-1998. As there was further sanction of two more vacancies they were also notified and applications are invited fixing the last date as 24-06-1998. As per the Rules for promotion weightage would be given for seniority, academic qualifications as well as for the work record. Insofar as the weightage for qualifications the prescribed maximum marks are 20. In response to the said Notification the petitioner applied along with others. It is also a fact that as per the Rules the General academic qualifications possessed by the candidates would be considered as on 31st december of the previous year. As per the rules a graduate is entitled for 12 marks; whereas a post-graduate or a double-graduate is entitled for 15 marks. It is also the case of the petitioner that out of ten vacancies two are reserved for Scheduled caste candidates and the petitioner is a contender for one of the posts. It is also stated that the petitioner has obtained the ll. B. degree having appeared for the said examination conducted in November/ december, 1997 by the Osmania University. However, the results have been declared in march, 1998 due to the pendency of a dispute before this Court. It is also stated that even the exams were conducted belatedly though they were supposed to be held in August/september, 1997. But, in fact, they were held only in November/ december, 1997 and the results were declared only in March, 1998. It is also stated that this position was explained by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent who sought clarification from the 1st respondent whether he could be awarded 15 marks for having acquired LL. B. degree. But the 1st respondent replied that since the cut off date was 31st December, the petitioner could not be awarded extra marks for additional qualification. This clarification is being questioned by the writ petitioner by contending that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatary and violative of the Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. It is also stated that with reference to the Insurance qualifications a different date was prescribed i. e. , if the results for insurance qualifications are declared after the base date i. e. , 31st December, but, before the last date for making applications that would be taken into consideration. This prescription of two different dates for two qualifications-one for academic ualification and another for Insurance qualification is contended as discriminatory.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as the petitioner was not awarded the additional three marks, in the list prepared by the respondents for promotion he was being down to No. 11 among the Scheduled Caste candidates. According to him if three additional marks are awarded for obtaining the LL. B. degree he would have been placed at No. 3 position and would have been promoted in the existing vacancies. It is, therefore, contended that there is absolutely no rational in prescribing different dates - one for Academic Qualifications and another for insurance Qualifications. The learned counsel also relied upon the decisions reported in Nirmal Chandra Bh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
