IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K MANMADHA RAO, J.
B. Padmaja - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.26781 of 2021
Decided on : : 21-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 - Writ of Mandamus - Rejection of candidature for School Assistant (Biology) - The petitioner, despite being recommended, was denied promotion based on alleged lack of qualifications, violating statutory rules and fundamental rights. (Paras 1, 17)
(B) Statutory Rules - G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 19.11.2014; G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.10.2018; G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 01.02.2019 - Qualifications for School Assistant (Biology) - The court emphasized that the petitioner met the qualifications as per the relevant GOs, which allow for allied subjects. (Paras 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, born on 01.02.1969, has extensive educational qualifications, including a B.Sc. in Home Science and a B.Ed. in Biology. She was promoted to School Assistant (Biology) but faced rejection from the 3rd respondent without valid reasons. (Paras 2, 17)
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection arbitrary and in violation of statutory rules, ordering the appointment of the petitioner as School Assistant (Biology) with all benefits from 06.01.2021. (Paras 17, 18)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the qualifications for the post and the legality of the rejection of the petitioner's candidature. (Paras 1, 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection was irrational and arbitrary, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory qualifications and the importance of providing reasons for administrative decisions. (Paras 17)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
K MANMADHA RAO, J.
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“…..to issue a Writ, Order or Director more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the petitioner candidature for the post of School Assistant (Biology) in the L.P.C.T Gujarati Vidyalaya (E.M), High School, Vijayawada-1, Krishna District, vide Rc.No.1504/A1/2021, dated 07.09.2021 despite recommendation by the 5th and 6th respondents is arbitrary, illegal, violation of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Art 14, 16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and violation of Statutory Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 19.11.2014, G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.10.2018 and G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 01.02.2019; consequently set aside Proceeding Rc.No.1504/A1/2021, dated 07.09.2021 and declare the petitioner is eligible to be promoted as School Assistant (Biology) in the L.P.C.T Gujarati Vidyalaya (E.M), High School, Vijayawada-1, Krishna District and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the post of School Assistant (Biology) in the L.P.C.T Gujarati Vidyalaya (E.M), High School, Vijayawada-1 with all benefits from 06.01.2021…….”
2. Brief facts of the case are that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.02.1969. The petitioner completed her 10th class in 1986 and intermediate in the year 1988 in Bi.P.C stream having Botany, Zoology, Physics and Chemistry as specialized subjects. The petitioner graduated in the year 1992 in Bachelor of Science (Home Science) and the relevant subjects are Rural health and Sanitation, Bio-Chemistry, Agriculture, Animal husbandry, Micro biology, Poultry, Therapeutic Nutrition, Fish Culture, Dairy Production and other subjects. The petitioner has completed her Degree of Bachelor of Education in 1996 with Biology as one subject. The petitioner further completed her B.Sc (Zoology) in 2004 from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University and Master of Science in Zoology in May, 2007 and the petitioner also cleared Accountant test in August, 2019. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) in L.P.C.T Gujarati Vidyalaya High School, Vijayawada on 27.10.2004. The appointment was approved vide Procs.Rc.No.29/A1/2018, dated 11.05.2018 of DEO, Krishna, Machilipatnam and the said school is Linguistic Minority Institution recognized and aided by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In view of the vacancy arisen to the post of School Assistant (Biology) on 26.12.2020, the 5th respondent has promoted the petitioner as School Assistant (Biology) with effect from 06.01.2021 and sent proposals vide Rc.No.04/2021 dated 27.01.2020 for necessary approvals from the 3rd respondent. The 5th respondent also states that the petitioner is fully qualified to hold the post. The 7th respondent has raised an objection saying that she is also eligible for the post. Considering the rival contentions, the deputy education officer, Vijayawada division has sent a communication to the 4th respondent regarding the promotional proposals of the petitioner. Therefore, the 4th respondent has returned the proposals to the 5th respondent with an instruction to submit an explanation within 10 days. The 5th respondent in turn submitted an explanation that as per the G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 19.11.2014, two allied subjects are required to be studied, however the petitioner has studied six (6) subjects and also submitted that AP ED CET Notification 2020 clearly mentioned B.Sc (Home Science) as eligible degree for School Assistant (Biology). Hence, the 6th respondent vide Lr.Rc.No.133/2021, dated 28.07.2021 has submitted the proposals to promote the petitioner stating that the petitioner is fully eligible as per G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 19.11.2014 as she has studied six subjects, though she just needs to study any two allied subjects. After going through the explanation of the 5th and 6th respondents, the 4th respondent has sent the proposal to the
The rejection of a qualified candidate for promotion to School Assistant (Biology) was arbitrary and violated statutory rules and fundamental rights, necessitating the appointment of the petitioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the qualifications required for appointment as a trained Teacher in Secondary School do not necessarily mandate a specific graduation subject,....
Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January, 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding w....
Point of law : Court cannot substitute the statutory qualification, which is not otherwise provided under the relevant provisions, which prescribe the essential qualification for appointment to the p....
Point of law: The word “equivalent” must be given a reasonable meaning. By using the expression “equivalent” one means that there are some degrees of flexibility of adjustment which do not lower the ....
Teacher training qualification mandatory at appointment time under statutory rules; subsequent acquisition does not validate; executive resolutions cannot override rules.
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.