Telangana High Court
E. Vijaya Lakshmi vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 3 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.19042 OF 2020
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of respondent No.3 in passing the proceedings
No.1063/E1/IPM/Estt/2020 dt.31.08.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, null and
void and as violative of G.O.Ms.No.371 dt.20.07.1994 for promotion to
the post of Deputy Chief Water Analyst (Institute of Preventive
Medicine, Public Health Labs & Food (Health) Administration) and
consequently to declare the proceedings No.1063/E1/IPM/Estt/2020
dt.31.08.2020 as being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India and to set aside the proceedings dt.31.08.2020 and
consequently to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Chief
Water Analyst after holding the petitioner as senior most eligible
candidate in the feeder category and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are
that the petitioner is an employee of the 3rd respondent organisation with
ID No.2573343 and is working as Senior Water Analyst. The petitioner
joined the 3rd respondent organisation on 31.07.1992 as a Junior Water
Analyst and is working as Senior Water Analyst from the year 2004. It
is stated that a vacancy in the post of Deputy Chief Water Analyst in the
3rd respondent organisation has been existing since January 30, 2020 and
the same was occupied by one Nirmala Kmari who had secured the
educational qualification of M.Sc., in Microbiology. It is submitted that
on 30.04.2020, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned order that
AIC (Associateship in Chemistry) is equivalent to M.Sc., Chemistry
which is one of the eligible criteria for promoting a Senior Analyst to
Deputy Chief or Chief of Water Analyst in the 3rd respondent
organisation. It is stated that the said order was challenged before this
Court in W.P.No.14419 of 2020 and notice was issued to the
respondents. It is submitted that petitioner issued a notice to the 2nd
respondent stating that W.P.No.14419 of 2020 has been filed and
requested not to take any action pursuant to the order dt.30.04.2020
which was under challenge. Subsequently, vide orders dt.31.08.2020 in
I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.14419 of 2020, an interim order was passed
directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Water Analyst by duly
considering the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the
rules, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. It is stated that while the
matters stood thus, the 3rd respondent has appointed the 4th respondent as
Deputy Chief Water Analyst on 31.08.2020 and on the same day, the 4th
respondent has also reported to duty and has taken charge. The
petitioner therefore communicated the interim order of this Court
dt.31.08.2020 also mentioned that the appointment of V. Kiranmai as
Deputy Chief Water Analyst was not in accordance with the order of
this Court. It is submitted that thereafter, on 03.09.2020, the 2nd
respondent has passed proceedings No.4567/E1/IPM/ESTT/2020
posting the petitioner to work in the College of MLT, IPM, Hyderabad
with immediate effect in addition to her regular duties.
3. It is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.371 dt.20.07.1994 is issued in
respect of the service rules of the Department and for promotion to the
post of Deputy Chief Water Analyst (Institute of Preventive Medicine,
Public Health Labs & Food (Health) Administration), the eligibility
criterion is mentioned as "must have passed M.Sc., with Chemistry or
Bio-Chemistry or Microbiology from a University in India established
or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or State Act or
an Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission or its
equivalent examination. It is submitted that these rules have not been
amended, but by the impugned proceedings dt.31.08.2020, the 3rd
respondent has promoted the 4th respondent to the post of Chief Water
Analyst by considering AIC (Associateship in Chemistry) though it is
not mentioned as eligible degree for the said position. It is submitted
that the petitioner was having M.Sc., Microbiology qualification and
therefore, she was eligible and has accordingly made representations
dt.27.05.2020, 01.06.2020, 17.08.2020 and 09.08.2020 for promotion to
the post of Deputy Chief Water Analyst, however, the same have not
been considered, but a person having only a diploma in Associateship in
Chemistry (which is not the prescribed qualification) has been
promoted. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the above
submissions relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 10.04.1998 in W.A.Nos.1298 and
1300 of 1996 and W.P.No.17961 of 1997 wherein the issue of the
Diploma in Associateship of the Institute of Chemists as equivalent to
M.Sc. Chemistry was considered and it was held that as long as the rules
are not amended, promoting a person with Diploma in Associateship of
the Institute of Chemists to the post of Senior Environmental Scientist is
not legal.
5. The 3rd respondent has filed its counter affidavit submitting that
the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Analyst (Water) in the
year 1992 and was promoted as Senior Analyst (Water) and reported on
23.10.2004 in the office of the 3rd respondent institution. It is submitted
that the post of Deputy Chief Water Analyst has to be filled up by
promotion from the feeder category of Senior Analyst (Water) duly
convening the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting to draw the
panel of Senior Analyst (Water) as per the ad hoc rules framed vide
G.O.Ms.No.371 HM&FW Department dt.20.07.1994 read with
G.O.Ms.No.337 HM&FW Department dt.28.08.1996 as the said post
comes under 2nd level Gazetted. It is submitted that as per the service
rules, the eligibility criteria for the post of Deputy Chief Water Analyst
is a pass in M.Sc., with Chemistry or Bio-chemistry or Microbiology
from a University in India established or incorporated by or under
Central Act or Provincial Act or a State Act or an Institution recognized
by University Grants Commission or its equivalent examination. It is
submitted that the qualification of Associateship in Chemistry (AIC) is
recognized by the Board of Assessment of Technical and Professional
Qualification, Government of India as equivalent to M.Sc., in Chemistry
for all chemical appointments for which M.Sc., degree in Chemistry is
prescribed as a qualification and as per G.O.No.F.18-36/57 T.5,
dt.19.08.1958 of Government of India. It is submitted that by taking the
same into consideration, one N. Krishna Kmari, Senior Analyst (Water)
was promoted as Deputy Chief Water Analyst in the year 2020 and the
same was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.14419 of 2020. It is
submitted that in compliance with the interim order of this Court, the
representation of the petitioner was considered and a speaking order was
issued to the petitioner vide Rc.No.1063/E1/IPM/Estt/2020
dt.15.12.2020. It is further submitted that the post of Deputy Water
Analyst is vacant since 01.05.2020 in the 3rd respondent institution and
the same has to be filled up by promotion from the feeder category of
Senior Analyst (Water) and on verification of the seniority list of Senior
Analysts (Water), the 4th respondent was the senior most candidate and
was having the qualification of AIC which is equivalent to M.Sc., with
Chemistry degree and accordingly, the Note proposals were prepared
and the Departmental Promotion Committee has considered the same
and issued promotion orders in favour of the 4th respondent. Therefore,
according to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner being the junior to the 4th
respondent could not be promoted as against the 4th respondent.
6. The 4th respondent also has filed a counter affidavit stating that
she is the senior to the petitioner herein and therefore, she was rightly
promoted.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the sole issue in this case is with regard to the
qualification required for promotion to the post of Deputy Chief Water
Analyst. Admittedly, G.O.Ms.No.371, Health Medical & Family
Welfare (L1) Department, dt.20.07.1994 prescribes the necessary
qualifications and it prescribes M.Sc., with Chemistry or Bio-chemistry
or Microbiology or its equivalent examination and it does not refer to
AIC (Associateship in Chemistry). According to the 3rd respondent, the
Government of India has issued a Government Order dt.19.08.1958 to
state that the recommendations of the Board of Assessment of Technical
and Professional Qualification, Government of India has decided that
'Associateship' diploma of the Institution of Chemists (India) obtained
by examination be recognised for all chemical appointments for which
M.Sc., degree in Chemistry is prescribed as a qualification. This
Government Order has been issued by the Government of India,
Ministry of Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs. Further, UGC, vide
its public notice on equivalency of degrees dated 01.07.2016 has
clarified that equivalence of degrees, diplomas, certificates, etc., are not
determined by the UGC and that in the case of higher education,
equivalence is decided by the University concerned and in cases of
employment, promotion, etc., equivalence is decided by the employing
organisation. The issue of its equivalence to M.Sc. Chemistry had come
up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.A.Nos.1298 and 1300 of 1996 and W.P.No.17961 of
1997 and the Division Bench has held that unless the Rules are
amended, appointment/promotion on the basis of such a qualification is
not legal. The said judgment was rendered in the year 1998 and it is
seen that there is no change in the prescribed qualification for the post of
Deputy Chief Water Analyst in the Service Rules. The learned
Government Pleader has not brought on record any decision to the
contrary or that the said judgment has been set aside. Therefore,
presumably the said judgment has become final. Therefore, the
petitioner who possessed M.Sc., in Microbiology as compared to a
person who is senior to her having the equivalent qualification of M.Sc.,
in Chemistry has to be considered. Therefore, this Court does not find
the promotion of the 4th respondent who admittedly does not possess the
prescribed qualification is not legal.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are
directed to pass consequential orders in favour of the petitioner subject
to the petitioner being otherwise eligible and qualified for promotion.
No order as to costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition
including I.A.No.1 of 2021 shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 03.06.2024
Svv
