AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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 â€" Category 2 â€" Reporters (English) â€" By direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer â€
(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.â€
The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition as the appellant was challenging the seniority after 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.