B Veera Reddy, Hyderabad vs Secy., A.P. Legislature ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 357 Tel

  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                        AND
       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                            W.A.No.929 of 2012

JUDGMENT:     (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


       This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18886 of 2003

dt.06-06-2012.


        2.   Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant, learned Government Pleader for

Law and Legislative Affairs, appearing for 1st respondent, Sri

P.Hemachandra, learned counsel for 2nd respondent and Sri

Aka Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for 3rd respondent.

3. It has been contended by the appellant that he

along with unofficial respondents were appointed as reporters

(English) in the service of State Legislature and the appellant

came to be appointed on 06-07-1995 and unofficial

respondents came to be appointed on 24-08-1993 and

29-11-1993, respectively.

4. The grievance of the appellant is that the unofficial

respondents were shown as seniors to the appellant and the

case of thee appellant is that the unofficial respondents were

not qualified for being appointed as reporters (English) as the

unofficial respondents did not possess Certificate of

Shorthand Higher Grade in English from the State Board of 2 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.929 of 2012

Technical Education but they have obtained the said

Certificate from the Madras Board. Learned counsel had

further contended that subsequently, the unofficial

respondents have acquired qualification from the State Board

but at the time of their initial appointment, the unofficial

respondents are not having requisite qualification from the

State Board. The appellant had contended that the learned

Single Judge had erroneously dismissed the Writ Petition

without appreciating that the unofficial respondents are not

having Shorthand English Certificate from the State Board

and held that if one possesses the Certificate from Madras

Board also can be treated as valid qualification and dismissed

the Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant had further

contended that for grant of special pay, one must have

requisite qualification from the State Board of Technical

Education and to that effect orders were issued in

G.O.Ms.No.217 dt.27-05-1993 making it very clear that

persons who possess qualification from the State Board of

Technical Education alone would be entitled for grant of

special pay scale. Though the recruitment rule did not

specifically prescribe that one must have the qualification of

Shorthand English Certificate from the State Board, it should

be inferred in the case that the Certificates obtained from

outside the State should not be treated as equivalent and on

that analogy, the appellant ought to have been declared as 3 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.929 of 2012

senior to the unofficial respondents. Therefore, learned

counsel for the appellant had contended that appropriate

orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the

orders passed by the learned Single Judge and further direct

the respondents to declare the appellant as senior to the

unofficial respondents.

6. Learned Government Pleader and both the learned

counsel for unofficial respondents had contended that as per

the Recruitment Rules, when there is no requirement of one

securing Certificate in Shorthand English from the State

Board what is not there in the Rules, the appellant cannot

contend that the unofficial respondents are not qualified.

Learned counsel for the respondents had further contended

that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ

Petition preferred by the appellant and the learned Single

Judge has extracted the recruitment rule and has specifically

held that the rule making authority was conscious of the fact

and not prescribed that one must have Certificate from the

State Board in respect of the Reporter's post in column (ii) of

the Recruitment Rules, and also, the rule making authority

has prescribed to have certificate from the State Board in

respect of column (iii) and omitted in respect of column (ii).

Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the

same is liable to be dismissed.

                                         4                               HCJ & AKS,J
                                                                   W.A.No.929 of 2012




       7.     This      Court         having      considered       the       rival

submissions made by the parties is of the considered view

that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ

Petition preferred by the appellant and the learned Single

Judge has extracted the relevant recruitment rule which

reads as under:

"Class IV - Category 2 - Reporters (English) - By direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer -

(i) Must have passed the PUC or Intermediate Examination of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act or an Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission or any other equivalent qualification:

Provided that preference shall be given to persons possessing higher general educational qualifications.

      (ii)    Must have passed the Shorthand (English) by
              the    grade     for    which    the   rate   of   speed

prescribed is not less than 180 words per minute:

Provided that preference shall be given to persons who have also passed Shorthand (Telugu) by Higher Grade.

(iii) Must have passed the Typewriting (English) by higher grade conducted by the State Board of Technical Education, Hyderabad."

The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ

Petition as the appellant was challenging the seniority after 5 HCJ & AKS,J W.A.No.929 of 2012

nearly 19 years to declare the appointments of the unofficial

respondents as bad in law. When the recruitment rule is

silent that one should acquire the qualification only from the

State Bard, which is not there in column (ii) of the rules and

the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted and a bare

perusal of the recruitment rules makes it abundantly clear

that unofficial respondents did possess the qualification as

prescribed in the recruitment rules. Therefore, the contention

of the appellant cannot be accepted that the unofficial

respondents are not qualified. Therefore, there are no merits

in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 01.02.2022 kvr