The qualifying date under Rule 6(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 is not mandatory and can be interpreted flexibly, allowing for exceptions in certain circumstances, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the petitioners' efforts to submit their certificates before the final seniority list was prepared.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are working as Agricultural Extension Officers for the following relief:

“To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent not considering our names for promotion to the post of Agricultural Officer in Zone-IV contrary to the Judgment of the Hon”ble Court in W.P.No.1648 of 2019 and batch and contrary to the Rule 5 © and 6(g) (ii) of Andhra Pradesh State and Sub-Ordinate Service Rules-Revised 1996 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the names of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Agricultural Officer in Zone-IV and pass…”

2. This Court has heard Sri K Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for Services-II.

3. The petitioners before this Court are working as Agricultural Extension Officers. Initially, they were denied promotion on the ground that they were diploma holders. A memo was issued on 12.05.2017 fixing their seniority. The same was challenged by filing OA.No.2886 of 2018 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed their case. Thereafter, they filed a batch of writ petitions before the Division Bench which by its order dated 25.10.2019 held in their favour and directed the respondents to consider the seniority of the petitioners from the initial date of appointment. The order of the Tribunal was thus set aside.

4. In this period, the petitioners completed their B.Sc.(AG) degree course. However, their names were not considered in the seniority list that was prepared because the certificates were submitted after 1st September of that year. The respondents relied upon Rule 5(c) of the State Subordinate Service Rules which prescribed that the 1st September shall be the qualifying date every year. On this essential ground, their cases were rejected. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

This is the factual matrix.

5. Learned senior counsel Sri Krishna Murthy argues that the plain language interpretation of Rule 6(b) of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 makes it very clear that 1st September could “ordinarily” be considered as the base date for estimating the vacancies. He also argues that the proviso to the said Rule gives the option to those who have subsequently passed the test to be included. Relying upon Rule 6(g) (ii), he points out that persons, who have not possessed the prescribed qualifications at the time of previous panel, can also be considered for inclusion, if they are qualified on the date prescribed. He submits that petitioners have the requisite qualification which is a Bachelor’s degree from a recognized University. Due to Covid, it is stated that the petitioners could not submit their degree certificates in time. He argues that the certificates were in fact submitted a short time thereafter.

6. Learned senior counsel points out that for being promoted as Agricultural Officer by transfer or promotion, the candidate should possess a degree of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture from a recognized University. Relying upon the documents filed and also the counter affidavit, the learned senior counsel argues that there is a few days gap after 1st September, 2019 and the petitioners had submitted their certificates to show the acquisition of the qualification on various dates ending with 23rd September, 2019. He argues that the date is not a strict mandatory date and the use of the word “ordinarily” makes it a flexible rule. He also submits that the Proviso provides an exception to the Rule permitting the petitioners to file their proof of acquisition of qualification after 1st September also. Relying upon the cases reported in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 12 SCC 254 and Kailash Chandra v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1346 whe