Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 116 (AP)

State of A. P. v. Y. V Venkata Ramaiah

2010-02-22

GHULAM MOHAMMED, P.V.SANJAY KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT :- Ghulam Mohammed, J. This writ petition is filed by the State represented by the Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation Department, Hyderabad and other officers against the order dated 24-7-2009 passed in OA No.5143 of 2009 with VMA No.905 of 2009 by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The facts stated are:- the applicant-1st respondent herein pursuant to the notification issued on 7-2-2009, by the District Collector, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District, to fill-up the posts of Agricultural Extension Officers, applied to the said post. The qualifications prescribed for the said post was diploma in agriculture polytechnic. But as the applicant was a holder of diploma in agriculture (seed technology), the authorities-petitioners herein entertained a doubt as to whether diploma in agriculture polytechnic is equivalent to diploma in agriculture (seed technology). To clarify this position, the applicant approached Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad-2nd respondent herein, by way of representation to clarify the position. The degree in diploma in agriculture (seed technology) is being offered by the said University, the 2nd respondent-University recommended the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad-2nd petitioner herein to consider the diploma holders in seed technology as equivalent to diploma in agriculture, for recruitment to the posts of Agricultural Extension Officer (Grade-II) in the districts along with the diploma holders in agriculture. It is stated that the District Collector-3rd petitioner herein being the Chairman of the Selection Committee, having selected the applicant issued orders dated 2-3-2009 appointing the applicant as AEO (Grade-II), directed him to report to Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Atmakur, Nellore District and accordingly the applicant joined duty. Thereafter, it is stated that the applicant was issued with notice dated 18-3-2009/19-3-2009 calling for his explanation as to why he should not be removed from service for not possessing the required qualification for the posts in which he was appointed. It is stated that the said notice was replied to by the applicant, but without considering reply in the proper perspective, the 4th petitioner, on the instructions of petitioners 2 and 3 passed orders dated 25-3-2009 cancelling the appointment and posting orders dated 2-3-2009. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed the instant OA before the Tribunal. 3. It is stated that the said notice was replied to by the applicant, but without considering reply in the proper perspective, the 4th petitioner, on the instructions of petitioners 2 and 3 passed orders dated 25-3-2009 cancelling the appointment and posting orders dated 2-3-2009. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed the instant OA before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal, on the consideration of the matter, by the impugned order set aside the order dated 25-3-2009 cancelling the appointment and posting orders dated 2-3-2009 and directed the petitioners herein to re-instate and re-appoint the applicant as AEO (Grade-II) in the light of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent-University. Assailing the said order, the State filed this writ petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that the applicant does not possess the prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of AEO (Grade-II) as per the Agricultural Sub-ordinate Service Rules issued in GO Ms.No.167, A&C, dated 17-4-1997, as amended and notified vide GO Ms.No.25, A&C, dated 29-1-2009. It is also contended that the rules do not prescribe any other qualification and does not recognize any other qualification as equivalent qualification. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent-University cannot determine the equivalence of qualifications prescribed by the rules. Since no other qualification is prescribed in the rules as substitute to diploma in agriculture polytechnic, which is the prescribed qualification for appointment to the said post, his appointment was rightly cancelled by the authorities-petitioners herein. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant strenuously contended that there is no suppression or misrepresentation of facts by the applicant and he applied for the said post in good faith and his case was considered for appointment pursuant to the clarification given by the 2nd respondent-University. It is also stated that the applicant applied for the post enclosing all the necessary educational qualification certificates including his previous employment service certificate and having issued appointment orders, it is not open for the petitioners to remove the applicant from service for no fault of him. 6. It is also stated that the applicant applied for the post enclosing all the necessary educational qualification certificates including his previous employment service certificate and having issued appointment orders, it is not open for the petitioners to remove the applicant from service for no fault of him. 6. Admittedly, the applicant was selected and appointed by the committee duly constituted, as AEO (Grade-II) and as on the date of his selection the prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of AEO (Grade-II) as per the Agricultural Subordinate Service Rules issued in GO Ms.No.167, A&C, dated 17-4-1997, as amended and notified vide GO Ms.No.25, A&C, dated 29-1-2009 is diploma in agriculture polytechnic. The appointing authorities de-hors the prescribed the qualification specified in the above GOs, in the light of the recommendations of the 2nd respondent-Agricultural University considered the case f the applicant. It is admitted by the learned Government Pleader that there was no suppression of facts by the applicant. It is also not disputed that applicant prior to his appointment as AEO (Grade-II), was working as Field Supervisor, on contract basis, in AP State Seeds Development Corporation, Hyderabad, and on account of his appointment as AEO (Garde-II), he resigned to that post and joined the service. 7. It is true that basing on the recommendation of the 2nd respondent-Agriculture University to the effect that a particularly degree is equivalent to that of the prescribed eligibility for the posts notified, appointments cannot be made, unless and until the rules are amended clarifying to that effect. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the petitioners to re-instate and reappoint the applicant. The insistence of qualification, experience and expertise required for a particular post are all within the domain and realm of the employer and the Court cannot substitute that requirement with that of its own evaluation and assessment required for post. Therefore the impugned order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and it is accordingly quashed. 8. Inasmuch as now it is stated that the rules are amended recognizing diploma in agriculture (seed technology), which the applicant possess, as equivalent qualification prescribed i.e. diploma in agriculture polytechnic, the case of the applicant shall have to be considered sympathetically. Therefore the impugned order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and it is accordingly quashed. 8. Inasmuch as now it is stated that the rules are amended recognizing diploma in agriculture (seed technology), which the applicant possess, as equivalent qualification prescribed i.e. diploma in agriculture polytechnic, the case of the applicant shall have to be considered sympathetically. In the circumstances, we direct the petitioners-authorities to consider the case of the applicant for re-appointment and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.