Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 398 (AP)

K. Manasa v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-04-13

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioners had concluded his arguments on 08.04.2020. Today learned Government Pleader for Services-I has concluded his arguments and Ms. K.S.G.Padmavathi, learned counsel representing Sri G.V.Shivaji, has been heard in reply submissions. 2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief :- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the respondents, in not considering the candidature of the petitioners, for the post of Village Horticulture Assistant, notified in Notification No. 1/Horti/2020, dated 10.01.2020, while allowing other candidates possessing B.Sc. (Agriculture) vide Government Memo No.AGCO1-HORT/63/2020-HS1, dated 01.05.2020, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners for Written Examination scheduled on 25.09.2020 for the post of Village Horticulture Assistant, notified in Notification No.01/Horti/2020, dated 10.01.2020 by issuing Hall Tickets, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. According to the petitioners, the respondents issued a notification No.01/Horti/2020, dated 10.01.2020 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Village Horticulture Assistants (General Recruitment). 4. As per Para No.3 of the notification, the required educational qualifications for the eligibility was as under:- “PARA-3: EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:- A candidate shall possess the academic qualifications for the post on the date of the notification. The candidates having either of the following qualifications are eligible for the post of Village Horticulture Assistant. 1) Must possess 4 years B.Sc Horticulture/B.Sc (Hons.) Horticulture/B.Tech. Horticulture from any University accredited by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Govt., of India, New Delhi (or) any University recognized in the State. 2) Must possess 2 years Diploma in Horticulture (from Dr. YSRHU/ANGRAU recognized).” 5. It is contended by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the petitioner possessed the academic qualification of Two years Diploma in Horticulture from ANGRAU University. 2) Must possess 2 years Diploma in Horticulture (from Dr. YSRHU/ANGRAU recognized).” 5. It is contended by the learned counsels for the petitioners that the petitioner possessed the academic qualification of Two years Diploma in Horticulture from ANGRAU University. The Diploma course was completed in the month of December 2019. The certificates could not be received by the petitioners by the time of applying for the post. As the last date for submission of online application was 31.01.2020, the petitioners made their applications, in time. The result was declared on 06.01.2020 and as such on the date of the notification i.e. 10.01.2020, the petitioners possessed the academic qualification of Two Years Diploma in Horticulture. 6. Sri N. Ashwartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that on the date of notification, the Diploma was not issued to the petitioners and as such it cannot be said that the petitioners acquired the requisite academic qualification on the date of the notification. He submits that mere completion of the course in the month of December 2019 would not make the petitioners eligible for the post under the notification. He submits that the petitioners have no right for consideration pursuant to the notification. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. The points for consideration are:- 1) Whether it is the date of declaration of result or issuance of the Diploma, on which a candidate acquires the qualification in the course concerned? 2) Whether the petitioners possessed the requisite academic qualification of Two Years Diploma in Horticulture from ANGRAU University on the date of notification i.e. 10.01.2020? 9. Rule 12(3)(a) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, clearly provides that a candidate should possess the academic qualification and experience including practical experience prescribed, if any, for the post on the date of the notification for direct recruitment issued by the concerned recruiting agency. 10. The notification included herein provides that the candidate must possess the qualification on the date of the notification. 11. 10. The notification included herein provides that the candidate must possess the qualification on the date of the notification. 11. In Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and others, (2005) 9 SCC 779 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard, in the matter of holding of requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets and that those documents are in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of resolution. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle, as it pertains to the domain of procedure. Every fraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. 12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the date of acquisition of the academic qualification is the date of declaration of the result in which the candidate succeeds and not on the date of issue of degree/Diploma certificates. The academic qualification on a specified date can be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets even later, subject of course to any rule to the contrary. 13. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I is right in contending that in the present case, it is the date of the notification on which the candidate must possess the qualification, But here the dispute is if the petitioners acquired the academic qualification on the date of notification or not. 14. It is undisputed that the petitioners completed the course in the month of December 2019 and on the date of notification 10.01.2020. The petitioners did not possess the Diploma Certificate. The date of declaration of result, has been doubted in as much as a according to the petitioners’ counsel, it is 06.01.2020 but according to the learned Government Pleader it could not be 06.01.2020. 15. The petitioners did not possess the Diploma Certificate. The date of declaration of result, has been doubted in as much as a according to the petitioners’ counsel, it is 06.01.2020 but according to the learned Government Pleader it could not be 06.01.2020. 15. Learned Assistant Government Pleader is right in his submissions that mere completion of course in December, 2019 would not make the petitioners eligible under the notification. But, here the petitioners further case is that the result was declared on 06.01.2020. There is a specific averment in Para No.3 of the reply affidavit, that the result was declared on 06.01.2020 to which there is no denial by the respondents by any counter to the reply affidavit. Learned counsels for the petitioners relied upon the documents annexed with the reply affidavit, dated 06.01.2020 to which Sri Advocate N. Ashwartha Narayana submitted that both are of the same date but with respect to different semesters i.e. 1st semester and 2nd semester of the 2nd year and it could not be that the result of both the semesters with respect to same student was declared on the same date. To this, learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the result of the 2nd semester was declared on 06.01.2020 and issuance of the documents on the same date does not mean that the result of the 1st semester was also declared on 06.01.2020. The documents annexed with reply affidavit show the marks of the 1st semester the 2nd semester of the 2nd year, and both were issued by the Principal on 06.01.2020. 16. Sri N. Ashwartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader further points out that in the W.P.No.3167 of 2021, the document Ex. P2 at page No. 24, thereof mentions that "Declared to have completed the requirements (64 credit hours) for the award of Two Year Diploma in Horticulture in Second class in the month of August, 2020 from SBVR Horticulture Polytechnic, Badvel, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh” in respect of Petitioner No.1 and Ex. P2 at page No. 24, thereof mentions that "Declared to have completed the requirements (64 credit hours) for the award of Two Year Diploma in Horticulture in Second class in the month of August, 2020 from SBVR Horticulture Polytechnic, Badvel, Kadapa District, Andhra Pradesh” in respect of Petitioner No.1 and Ex. P2 at page No. 27, mentions “Declared to have completed the requirements (64 credit hours) for the award of Two Year Diploma in Horticulture in Second class in the month of May, 2020 from SSPG Horticultural Polytechnic, Madakasira, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh”, in respect of petitioner No. 2 of the W.P. No. 3167/2021 and based there on he submits that the date of declaration of result at least in the cases of those petitioners cannot be 06.01.2020, and in any case, in view of what is mentioned in Ex. P2, those petitioners did not acquire the requisites academic qualification on 10.01.2020. 17. From the aforesaid, the date of declaration of the result, the petitioners being successful or not therein, and acquisition of the requisite academic qualification on 10.01.2020 is highly disputed Question of fact, which in the absence of the declaration of result being on record it would not be proper to hold either way in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. However it requires determination by the authorities, as upon the date of declaration of result, depends the acquisition of the academic qualification on the date of notification i.e. 10.01.2020. 18. The interest of justice would be served, if the respondent No.3 is directed to consider and determine on what date the result of the petitioners’ two years Diploma course was declared, by or after 10.01.2020 and Consequently if the petitioners acquired the academic qualification on 10.01.2020 or not. 19. Respondent No.3/Commissioner of Horticulture therefore is directed to consider the same upon a representation being made by the petitioners before the said authority. The petitioners are granted liberty to move fresh representation annexing all the material papers. Such decision shall be taken by the 3rd respondent within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of presentation of copy of the representation along with copy of this order. 20. The petitioners appeared in the selection process under the interim orders passed in the writ petitions. Such decision shall be taken by the 3rd respondent within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of presentation of copy of the representation along with copy of this order. 20. The petitioners appeared in the selection process under the interim orders passed in the writ petitions. It is therefore further provided that if the respondent No.3 finds that the result was declared by the date of the notification i.e. 10.01.2020 and the petitioners succeeded therein, the petitioners acquired the requisite academic qualification on the date of notification, the further selection process with respect to those petitioners shall be completed and if there is no other legal impediment. 21. The Writ petition stands disposed of finally with the observations and directions contained herein above. No orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.