AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J
The three appeals are filed questioning the order in W.P.No.2820 of 2021 dated 13.04.2022, W.P.No.18147 of 2019 dated 11.07.2022 and in W.P.No.10542 of 2021 dated 28.07.2022 respectively. With the consent of all the counsels, W.A.No.613 of 2022 is taken up for hearing as the lead case. This was followed by the other two writ appeals.
Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellants argues that the issue involved in this writ appeal is about the interpretation of the respondents on the issue: ‘whether a graduate in Commerce is a graduate in Arts and Humanities or not’. He points out that the same issue is involved in all the writ appeals. The appellants are the applicants for the Post of Ward Welfare and Development Secretary (Grade-II). All the appellants have B.Com degrees. They have qualified for the post but at the time of certificate verification, they were considered ineligible since according to the respondents, a Graduate in Commerce is not a Graduate in Arts and Humanities.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that initially when the petitioners were denied their right many of them filed writ petitions which were disposed of giving them opportunity to make a detailed representation to the respondents. A detailed representation was thereafter made and by proceedings dated 12.01.2020, the case of the petitioners was rejected. Thereafter W.P.No.2820 of 2021 was filed questioning the order dated 12.01.2020.
Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellants submits that even though the learned single Judge heard the matter at length, he disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry and look into the documents filed to decide whether the course of B.Com is covered by Arts and Humanities or not. Questioning the same, the present set of appeals are filed. Learned counsel submits that the material was available before the learned single Judge to come to a conclusion himself, but he chose to direct the respondents to make an enquiry into the matter. It is the learned counsels contention as urged in paras 3, 4 and 5 of appeal grounds that the learned single Judge, should have himself decided the matter on the material available, instead of asking the respondents to once again look into the issue. Without prejudice to this, the learned counsel submits that the material available is sufficient for this Court to decide the issue. He submits that the essential rejection of the case of the appellants for recognizing their degree as an Arts and Humanities subject is based on the Gazette dated 05.07.2014 published by the University Grants Commission (UGC). Relying on this Gazette notification, the respondents have rejected the request of the petitioners and held that B.Com., degree is not a subject in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.
However, learned counsel points out that the very same UGC addressed a letter dated 16.01.2020 to one P.Eeswara Rao, which is filed as a material paper, wherein it is clarified that the University has to decide under which faculty a particular programme may be conducted. He points out that the clarification sought by Sri Eeswar Rao with regard to ‘whether commerce subject comes under the stream of Arts and Humanity and Social Sciences’. Relying on this, it is submitted that the very same UGC left it open to the Universities to decide under which faculty a programme may be conducted. He also relies upon the intimation given under Right to Information Act to one K.Rajeev Singh. The information sought by that candidate was: whether law, commerce, management, physical education courses comes under Arts, Humanities etc. The reply of UGC was that the major research project was shut down/discontinued, but it is clarified when the scheme was in operation, the following subjects were covered under Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences included in this are Commerce/Economics, Fine Arts, Library Science etc. In W.A.No.749 of 2022 a letter dated 06.08.2021 issued by the UGC is filed which again states that B.Com., degree can be treated under Arts, Humanities etc. The 2014 notification only has grouping for convenience as per this letter. Based on these documents, learned counsel argues that the UGC itself in its research programme etc., clarified that Arts and Humanities includes commerce and left it to the Universities. Relying upon the other certificates issued by the Sri Venkateswara University on 03.12.2020, Board of Intermediate Education on 10.12.2019, Aadi Kavi Nannaya University on 26.09.2019, Nagarjuna University on 27.12.2019, degree certificate of Rayalaseema University, advertisement of JNTU, a publication of 2014/APHSC, A.P. State Council for Higher Education, learned counsel argues that B.Com., course is considered a course under Arts and Humanities. He points out that all the major Universities located in the State of Andhra Pradesh have classified the B.Com., course as a course under the Arts and Humanities.
In the additional documents filed, he relies upon the degree certificates issued by Rayalaseema University to G.Dubbanna and to M.M.Naik, wherein the B.Com., degree is issued by the Faculty of Humanities and Social sciences. He relies upon a certificate issued by the Krishna University, Mahcilipatnam which again classifies a B.Com., degree as a course under Arts and Humanities. He relies upon a letter of certificate issued by the Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University dated 09.11.2022 which also certifies that a B.Com., degree award comes under Arts and Humanities. Relying on these documents, learned counsel argues that the concerned Universities which are actually teaching the B.Com., course have considered these as courses under the Arts and Humanities stream only and therefore, the respondents are wrong. He, therefore, concludes that the persons administering the Department namely the experts have classified this as a course under Arts and Humanities and therefore, the appellants are eligible for the posts.
In reply to this, learned Government Pleader justifies the order passed on merits and states that this Court should lightly interfere with the said order. It is his contention that as directed by the Hon’ble Court, a detailed enquiry was conducted and thereafter a speaking order was issued to all the candidates. Relying upon the contents of speaking order dated 19.09.2022, learned counsel submits that the UGC has issued the requisite clarification on 05.07.2014 which was in turn examined by the A.P. State Council for Higher Education. This was followed by the Government Memo dated 05.11.2020 and 24.05.2022. It is therefore submitted that after examining the issue, the respondents have come to a conclusion that the B.Com., course cannot be considered as a course in Arts and Humanities. It is also specified that the job chart of the post for which the appellants applied are pertaining to Welfare and upliftment of weaker sections and therefore, subjects like corporate accounting, accounts etc., do not match with the roles that are envisaged to be discharged by the employees. Therefore, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 argues that there is nothing wrong with the impugned order and that the writ appeals should be dismissed.
COURT: This Court after considering the submissions notices that on 05.07.2014, broad discipline-wise nomenclatures of degrees were decided by the UGC. The degrees are specified in generic terms as per the guiding principles which are mentioned in the later part of the same Gazette. This document is the basis for the respondent-States decision. However, this Court notices that on a request made for a clarification whether Commerce comes under the Arts and Humanity and Social Sciences stream, the UGC on 16.01.2020 stated that the University has to decide under which faculty a particular programme may be conducted. This issue was also brought to the notice of the respondents when the hearing was given. When information sought under the Right to Information Act, whether law, commerce etc., courses come under the Arts and Humanities, the UGC replied that in a scheme that existed called the Major Research Project, Commerce was included under the Arts and Humanity Social Sciences. The appellants have also submitted a letter dated 06.08.2021 from the UGC which stated that the B.Com., degree may be treated under the discipline of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences by the University concerned, which awards the degree. This is mentioned in the impugned order dated 19.09.2022.
In addition, virtually all the major Universities in the State of Andhra Pradesh have classified that a B.Com., degree should be considered under the Humanities and Social Sciences. Andhra University, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Sri Venkateswara University and Sri Krishnadevaraya University have clearly issued proceedings to this effect too. The Board of Intermediate Education, which conducts (the plus 2) examination and not the degree examination has also certified that a person who passes the two year intermediate course (plus 2) with Economics, Commerce and Civics comes under Humanities as per the Board of Intermediate norms. Even the JNTU, which is essentially an Engineering Technological University, classified the Commerce as a subject under Humanities. This is visible from their employment notification dated 05.01.2018. It is filed with the writ papers. The degree certificates issued by the Rayalaseema University show that the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences have admitted students under the Bachelor of Commerce Degree. The Krishna University, Machilipatnam has also classified the three year B.Com., course as a course under Arts and Humanities. To the similar effect is the certificate issued by the Dr.B.R.Ambedkhar Open University.Even the Krishnadevaraya University has classified the B.Com., degree as one under Humanities and Social Sciences.
The normal rule and as per the settled law, matters relating to Academic issues should be left to the experts themselves namely Academics. The law is too well settled to be repeated here. Without contradiction, virtually all the Academic Experts namely, the Universities which are actually administering the courses and teaching the students have categorically held that a B.Com., course falls under Arts and Humanities only. No material to the contrary has been produced by the respondent-State from any Educational Institution or an academic expert of repute. Equally interesting is the fact that all the Universities that are mentioned in this order and also Board of Intermediate Education, function under the control of the State, Government and they themselves have clearly held that a degree in Commerce is a degree in Arts and Humanities only. The brochure for entrance tests of Nannayya University clearly shows ‘M.Com.,’ under Arts courses.
In the light of this very overwhelmingly clear mandate and opinion of the people concerned, namely the Universities and academics, this Court is of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondents is absolutely incorrect.
In the counter affidavit filed, an attempt is made to state that a person who qualifies in Commerce would not be able to implement the roles and responsibilities of a Award Welfare and Development Secretary. It is also stated that they will not be able to discharge their duties.
In the opinion of this Court, this argument also cannot be accepted for the reason that this appears to be an afterthought and a further development. The notification for recruitment issued does not specify the nature of the job nor does it specify that only a person with Arts background would be able to discharge the duties. Meritorious sportsmen are given preference in the notification. Ex-service men, people who work in the NCC as an Instructor, Retrenched Government Employees in the State Census development with minimum service of six months etc., are also considered eligible and are given age relaxation as per the notification. When such people are found to be competent to discharge the duties, this Court is of the opinion that even a person who possess a B.Com., degree would be eligible.
In the opinion of this Court, the appellants who have qualified in the exam and who were found ineligible only at the stage of certificate verification should be considered eligible for the job. The order passed by the learned single Judge is therefore set aside. The respondents are directed to consider and appoint the petitioners as Ward Welfare and Development Secretary (Grade-II) under their respective categories.
In view of the order passed in W.A.No.613 of 2022, other writ appeals wherein very similar grounds are urged are also allowed. The learned counsel for the writ appellants advanced the same arguments.
W.A.No.613 of 2022 is allowed setting aside the order dated 13.04.2022 in W.P.No.2820 of 2021. W.A.No.748 of 2022 is allowed setting aside the order dated 11.07.2022 in W.P.No.18147 of 2019 and W.A.No.749 of 2022 is allowed setting aside the order dated 28.07.2022 in W.P.No.10542 of 2021.
A uniform declaration is given that the B.Com., course is a course in Arts and Humanities. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to immediately to take steps for considering the petitioners/appellants for appointment. This exercise should be completed within eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.