Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 376 (AP)

E. N. Mounika Sai v. Sanapala V. L. N. Uday Kumar

2021-07-01

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, NINALA JAYASURYA

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Veera Reddy, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Kirthi Teja, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2/writ petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for respondent No. 3, and Mr. Addanki Ramachandra Murthy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. I.A. No. 2 of 2021 is an application seeking leave to the applicant-appellant to prefer appeal against an order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 4259 of 2021. 3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. Respondent No. 1/writ petitioner No. 1 is a Doctorate in Public Administration and Respondent No. 2/writ petitioner No. 2 is a Postgraduate in Public Administration. Pursuant to a notification dated 31.12.2018 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for recruitment to the posts of Lecturers in Government Degree Colleges in A.P. Collegiate Education Service, the respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners had applied for the posts of Lecturers in Political Science, but their candidature was not considered for interview on the ground that they did not possess Under-graduate Degree in the relevant subject and, thus, were disqualified. 4. Para-3 of the Notification prescribes the educational qualifications for the post of Lecturer in a tabular form in a box. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that the qualification so prescribed is in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 14.05.2007 issued by the Higher Education (CE-I-1) Department of the Government of A.P. By the said G.O.Ms. No. 47, in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh had made the Andhra Pradesh Collegiate Education Service Rules, 2007 (for short ‘2007 Rules’). 5. The qualification prescribed in the notification dated 31.12.2018 does not specifically mention that it is a requirement that one should possess Under-graduate Degree in the relevant subject. 6. However, below the table containing the educational qualifications as indicated in Para-3 of the notification, there is a Note, which reads as follows: “Note: Please see Annexure-III for subject equivalency particulars.” 7. The qualification prescribed in the notification dated 31.12.2018 does not specifically mention that it is a requirement that one should possess Under-graduate Degree in the relevant subject. 6. However, below the table containing the educational qualifications as indicated in Para-3 of the notification, there is a Note, which reads as follows: “Note: Please see Annexure-III for subject equivalency particulars.” 7. In Annexure-III (subject equivalency particulars), against the post of Lecturer in Political Science, for which the respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners had applied, under the heading “Qualification (PG Level)” it is mentioned as M.A. (Political Science) and M.A. Public Administration. Under another heading styled as “Qualification in Under Graduate Level” against the very same post, it is mentioned as follows: “Same subject in Under Graduate Level as clarified by APSCHE vide Lr. No. APSCHE/Ums-1035/Clarification-Equiv.Qualifications/2018, dated 03-07-2018.” 8. The aforesaid letter dated 03.07.2018 is available at Page 37 of the appeal papers. The said letter was written by the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, to the Special Commissioner of Collegiate Education. It contains four clarifications in respect of four different candidates. For the purpose of understanding this case, it is suffice to take note of the clarification provided in respect of S. No. 1. The said clarification reads as follows: “The individual has not studied Political Science at +2 and Degree level and hence the same does not come under good academic record according to the UGC Regulations 2010, though the individual has PG Degree in Public Administration. Hence, the individual is not eligible for appointment as a Lecturer in Political Science.” 9. The learned single Judge had observed that imposition of condition in pursuance of the letter dated 03.07.2018 would amount to prescribing additional qualification beyond the 2007 Rules, thereby rendering the respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners ineligible to appear for the interview. Holding the said condition to be arbitrary and contrary to the Rules framed under G.O.Ms. No. 47 dated 14.05.2007, the learned single Judge set aside the condition and directed the Public Service Commission to permit the respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners to take part in the interview process for the posts of Lecturers in the relevant subject, if they were otherwise eligible, and to complete the process in accordance with law. 10. No. 47 dated 14.05.2007, the learned single Judge set aside the condition and directed the Public Service Commission to permit the respondents 1 and 2/writ petitioners to take part in the interview process for the posts of Lecturers in the relevant subject, if they were otherwise eligible, and to complete the process in accordance with law. 10. The applicant-appellant herein had aspired for the post of Lecturer in History pursuant to the notification dated 31.12.2018 and in the letter dated 03.07.2018, the same analogy was given in respect of the post of Lecturer in History at S. No. 4, as was given in respect of S. No. 1. 11. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 2 of 2021, the applicant-appellant had made a statement, which reads as follows: “To my reliable information, I have secured the highest number of marks in the Written Test and the interview as of now.” 12. This Court, by order dated 06.05.2021, required the applicant-appellant to file an affidavit regarding the basis for making such statement when admittedly result had not been declared. 13. The applicant-appellant has filed an affidavit stating that there was only one vacancy in the post of Lecturer in History, for which she had applied, and though initially two candidates, i.e. herself and another candidate, were called for interview, the other candidate was found to be disqualified later on. Though subsequently another candidate was called for interview, as she was called for the interview on the first occasion, she was under the bona fide impression that she had secured higher marks in the written test. It is further stated that as she had answered most of the questions in the interview, she was under the impression that she might have secured higher marks in the interview as well but, instead of saying that she was under bona fide belief, a wrong expression, namely, reliable information, was applied. 14. Be that as it may. 15. The contention advanced by Mr. 14. Be that as it may. 15. The contention advanced by Mr. P. Veera Reddy is that in view of the judgment of the learned single Judge, many more candidates may now be allowed to participate in the selection process in respect of the post of Lecturer in History, as a result of which, chances of the appellant succeeding in the interview process may get diminished in view of more competition as earlier only two candidates were in fray for the lone post of Lecturer in History. He further submits that if the order of the learned single Judge was limited only to the two writ petitioners who had applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science, the applicant-appellant would not have had any grievance, but as the additional prescription of qualification had been set aside, the same would permit other candidates who did not have Under-graduate Degree in the relevant subject to take part in the selection process. 16. We are of the considered opinion that merely because the chances of success may get reduced in view of more competition coming into play in respect of the post for which the applicant-appellant had applied, grant of leave is not called for to permit her to assail the order of the learned single Judge. 17. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2 of 2021 is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal also stands dismissed. No costs. Other pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.