Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ravi Cheemalapati, J.
Meesala Pavani – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 8469 and 8479 of 2021
Decided On : 01-07-2022
EDUCATION QUALIFICATION - LECTURER POST - ELIGIBILITY - CUT-OFF DATE - [RULE 12(3)(A) OF A.P. STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1996] - THE CUT-OFF DATE FOR ACQUIRING THE ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATIONS FOR A POST IS THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED RECRUITING AGENCY. THE CANDIDATES MUST POSSESS ALL THE ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS AS ON THE DATE OF THE NOTIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
PETITIONERS APPLIED FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN GOVERNMENT DEGREE COLLEGE ISSUED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 26/2018 DATED 31.12.2018. THEY QUALIFIED FOR THE INTERVIEW BUT WERE REJECTED AS THEY DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUISITE QUALIFICATION OF NET AS ON THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION. THEY ACQUIRED NET QUALIFICATION ON 05.01.2019.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT HELD THAT THE CANDIDATES MUST POSSESS ALL THE ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS AS ON THE DATE OF THE NOTIFICATION. THE PETITIONERS DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUISITE NET QUALIFICATION AS ON THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION, HENCE THEY WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE POST.
Issues: WHETHER THE PETITIONERS WERE ELIGIBLE FOR THE POST OF LECTURER DESPITE NOT POSSESSING THE REQUISITE QUALIFICATION OF NET AS ON THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION.
Ratio Decidendi: RULE 12(3)(A) OF THE A.P. STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1996, AND THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY APPSC CLEARLY STIPULATE THAT THE CANDIDATES MUST POSSESS ALL THE ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS AS ON THE DATE OF THE NOTIFICATION. THE PETITIONERS ACQUIRED NET QUALIFICATION ON 05.01.2019, WHICH WAS AFTER THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON 31.12.2018. THEREFORE, THEY WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR APPLYING FOR THE POSTS NOTIFIED IN THE SAID NOTIFICATION.
Final Decision: THE WRIT PETITIONS WERE DISMISSED.
JUDGMENT
Ravi Cheemalapati, J. - Both these writ petitions are filed by two separate individuals. However, since they are filed for similar relief and as the learned counsel for the parties advanced similar arguments, for sake of convenience, both the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
2. These writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
'....to issue a writ, order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents, in not allowing the petitioner to participate in an oral interview for the post of Lecturer in Government Degree college issued vide its notification No. 26/2018 dated 31.12.2018 despite of being possessed requisite qualification as per para-3 of notification as on the date of making application is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also violative of articles 14,16,19,21 & 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview process scheduled herein as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Sathya Balaji Rao v. Andhra Pradesh College Service Commission, Hyderabad (2002 LawSuit(AP) 1473, Rekha Chaturvedi vs. University of Rajasthan (1993 LawSuit(SC) 43)....'
3. The contentions in both the writ petitions are similar and in brief, they are summarized as under:
In response to the notification No. 26/2018 dated 31.12.2018 issued by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, 'APPSC') inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up the posts of Degree college lecturers of various subjects, the petitioners applied for the post of lecturer for Computer Science and Computer applications subjects and they had appeared for the examination held for the post of Lecturer conducted by the APPSC and they were qualified for the interview and accordingly call letters have been issued vide Memo No. 575/D.L./2018, dated 01.02.2021. It is the further case of the petitioners that during certificate verification, the respondent authorities stated that the petitioners did not possess requisite qualification prescribed for the post. It is the further case of the petitioners that they acquired M.Tech Computer Science qualification from Andhra University and qualified NET conducted by the University Grants Commission, however, the respondent authorities rejected the candidature of the petitioners for interview on the ground that the date of notification was 31.12.2018 but the petitioners qualified NET on 05.01.2019 only and hence they did not possess necessary qualifications on the date of issuance of the notification and thus they are not eligible. It is the further case of the petitioners that in catena a decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts categorically held that a candidate applying for a particular post should necessarily possess the qualification as on the date of making the application and since the petitioners have applied for the posts on 16.02.2019 and 18.02.2019 respectively and the notification prescribes the last date for submission of applications as 26.02.2019, the respondent authorities are not justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for interview and hence the present writ petitions have been filed.
4. The 3rd respondent - APPSC filed separate counter affidavits in both the writ petitions, however, with similar contents and in brief, they are as under:
The Commission has issued notification for filling up of 308 posts of lecturers in various subjects in Government Degree Colleges through notification No. 26/2018 dated 31.12.2018 including 50 vacancies for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science and 20 vacancies in Computer Applications. As per the condition laid down in G.O. Ms. No. 464, GA (Ser-D), dated 19.11.
THE CUT-OFF DATE FOR ACQUIRING THE ELIGIBILITY QUALIFICATIONS FOR A POST IS THE DATE OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED RECRUITING AGENCY.
Point of law: A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rationa....
(1) Appointment – Eligibility of a candidate is assessed on the basis of particulars and documents furnished at the time of application, and there is no provision for subsequent supplementation or re....
The court affirmed that eligibility for public employment must be determined by the cut-off date specified in the advertisement, with no provision for relaxation.
Public appointments are void if they lack adherence to stipulated eligibility criteria as of the cut-off date, regardless of length of service or administrative inaction.
The possession of prescribed educational qualification as of the cut-off date specified in the notification, the validity of relaxation of conditions, and the entitlement of candidates to be consider....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed educational qualifications and held that any relaxation of such requirements should be explicitly provided for in the notification.
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
