IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Sanapala VLN Uday Kumar and another - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by Its Principal Secretary Higher Education Department and another - Respondents
W.P. No. 4259 of 2021
Decided On : 25-02-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16, 21, 162, 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not conducting interview to the petitioners and not considering their cases for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Political Science in pursuance of Notification issued by the 2nd Respondent on the ground that they do not possess undergraduate degree in the relevant subject is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioners are entitled for consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Political Science without insisting undergraduate degree certificate in the relevant subject and pass such other order or orders
Finding of court: Even if these principles are applied to the present facts of the case when the rules specifically prescribing a specific qualification and insisting these petitioners to possess degree in relevant subject at the under graduate level by executive/administrative institutions exercising power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India adding additional qualification which is not prescribed in the rules, is a serious illegality. – Condition imposed by 2nd respondent in Annexure-III of the advertisement inviting applications based on the Lr.No.APSCHE/ums-1035/Clarification-equiv-Qualifications/ 2018, dated 03.07.2018 is contrary to the rules and it is nothing but prescribing additional qualification to the qualification prescribed under the rules and thereby the said condition prescribed is illegal and contrary to law. – Hence, the condition prescribing a qualification i.e., possessing degree in the relevant subject in under graduate level is hereby quashed. – When this Court quashed the condition imposed in pursuance of the letter in Lr.No.APSCHE/ums-1035/Clarification-equiv-Qualifications/2018, dated 03.07.2018, the petitioners became eligible to appear for interview for the post of Lecturer in Political Science, as the action of the respondents is arbitrary and contrary to the rules vide G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (C.E.I.1) Department, dated 14.05.2007
Result: Writ Petition Allowed
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the 1st petitioner completed his post graduate and joined in Andhra University to pursue Ph.D (Full time). The 1st petitioner obtained Ph.D degree in Public Administration from Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Andhra University. The 2nd petitioner acquired Post graduation in M.A. Public Administration from Andhra University. She also completed M.A in Political Science from IGNOU in the year 2016. Presently she is pursuing Ph.D in Political Science in Andhra University.
The 2nd respondent issued a notification calling for applications from the interested candidates for the post of Lecturer in Degree colleges in A.P. Collegiate Education Service and in response to the notification, the petitioners submitted their applications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Political Science. The 2nd respondent on 11.01.2019 issued Web Note informing that the candidates who possess higher qualification than the prescribed qualification shall also be considered for selection along with the candidates who possessed prescribed qualifications. In pursuance of the above Web Note, the petitioners applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and also for the post of Lecturer in Commerce. The 2nd petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. Both are qualified for interview for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and call letters were also issued calling these petitioners for interview on 12.02.2021 along with relevant certificates. Accordingly, both the petitioners attended to interview on 12.02.2021 and produced relevant certificates pertaining to the qualification in the office of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent verified all the original certificates submitted by these petitioners and after verification of their certificates they orally informed the petitioners that they are not qualified to appear for interview as they did not possess under graduate degree in the relevant subject i.e., Political Science or in Public Administration and therefore they were not allowed to participate in the interview process.
The specific contention of the petitioners is that as per Rule 8 of A.P. Collegiate Education Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (C.E.I.1) Department, dated 14.05.2007 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Degree college by direct recruitment (i) one should have good academic record with a minimum 55% marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at Master’s Degree level, in the relevant subject obtained from the Universities recognized in India and (ii) should have passed National Eligibility Test (NET) for Lecturer conducted by UGC, CSIR, or similar tests accredited by the UGC or SLET conducted by APPSC.
It is also further contended that similar qualifications as prescribed by the above said rules as incorporated in the above said
State of Uttaranchal Versus Alok Sharma and others
Ashish Kumar Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Vs. Manmohan Singh and another
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Surender Singh and others
State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Vijay Kumar Misra
Madras Inst. of Dev. Studies & Anr. vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors.
B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore
Union of India v. Majji Jangammyya
State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar
State of U. P. and Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya
State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone
Union of India v. Sri Somasundaram Vishwanath
Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar
Swapan Kumar Pal and Ors. v. Samitabhar Chakraborty
Ram Ganesh Tripathi v. State of U.P.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
Abdulla Rowther v. STA Tribunal
State of Sikkim v. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia
District Collector, Chittoor v. Chittoor Groundnut Traders Association
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.