Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
E.N. Mounika Sai, vs Sanapala Vln Uday Kumar on 1 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
I.A.No.2 of 2021 in WRIT APPEAL No.266 of 2021
and
WRIT APPEAL No.266 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
E.N. Mounika Sai D/o. E. Nagaraju,
Aged about 26 years, R/o.H.No.19-192,
Begarlapalli Village, Madaksira Mandal,
Anantapuramu District.
.. Appellant.
Versus
Sanapala VLN Uday Kumar S/o. Late S. Narasinga Rao,
Aged about 39 years, R/o.3919110,
Near Kodanda Ramalayam Temple,
Madhavadara Industrial Estate,
Visakhapatnam - 530 007 and others.
.. Respondents.
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. P. Veera Reddy, Sr. Counsel
for Ms. Sodum Anvesha
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. K. Kirthi Teja,
for Mr. Ravi Kondaveeti
Counsel for respondent No.3 : GP for Services-III
Counsel for respondent No.4 : Mr. Addanki Ramachandra Murthy
ORAL ORDER
Dt: 01.07.2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
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
HCJ&NJS,J
I.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.A.No.266 of 2021&
W.A.No.266 of 2021
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 Post-
graduate 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‟).
HCJ&NJS,J
I.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.A.No.266 of 2021&
W.A.No.266 of 2021
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. 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 Sl.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
HCJ&NJS,J
I.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.A.No.266 of 2021&
W.A.No.266 of 2021
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. 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 Sl.No.4, as was given in respect of Sl.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.
HCJ&NJS,J
I.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.A.No.266 of 2021&
W.A.No.266 of 2021
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. 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.
HCJ&NJS,J
I.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.A.No.266 of 2021&
W.A.No.266 of 2021
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.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
IBL
HCJ&NJS,J
I.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.A.No.266 of 2021&
W.A.No.266 of 2021
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
I.A.No.2 of 2021 in WRIT APPEAL No.266 of 2021
and
WRIT APPEAL No.266 of 2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Dt: 01.07.2021
IBL
