AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ appeal is arising out of common order dated 11.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.35310 of 2018 and 9681 of 2019.
The facts of the case reveal that an advertisement was issued on 18.12.2017 by the Telangana Public Service Commission inviting applications for the post of Extension Officer and thereafter Addendum was also issued on 11.01.2018. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellants/writ petitioners do not have the requisite qualification as per the initial advertisement issued on 18.12.2017. They came up before this Court claiming eligibility on the basis of addendum dated 11.01.2018 issued by the Telangana Public Service Commission (TPSC). The addendum issued by the TPSC provided that persons, who are not having essential qualifications, shall also be considered for appointment to the post of Extension Officer in case they hold higher qualifications. Addendum issued by TPSC is reproduced as under:
"TELANGANA STATE PUBLIC SERVIE COMMISSION : :
HYDERABAD
WEB NOTIFICATION
ADDENDUM
It is for information of the candidates/aspirants who wish to apply for the post of Extension Officer Grade-I (Supervisors-Grade-I) vide Notification No.66/2017, Dt: 18/12/2017 to take note that in view of G.O.Ms.No.282, General Administration (Ser- A) Department, dated 20/09/2003, the Candidates who possess higher qualification than the prescribed qualification and the candidates with higher qualification without the prescribed qualification shall also be considered for selection along with candidates who have the prescribed qualification only and in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.14 Women Development Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare (ESTT Department, Dt: 10/05/2000, G.O.Ms.No.14, Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (ESTT-A-2) Dept, Dt: 27/06/2013, G.O.Ms.No.16 Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (ESTT) Dept, Dt: 31/05/2016 preferential qualification also prescribed to the post of Extension Officer Grade-I (Supervisors-Grade-I) i.e. Aptitude to work in Urban, Rural and Tribal areas.
The submission of online application is from 23/12/2017 and last date for submission of application 24/01/2018.
The other details for Notification No.66/2017, Dt: 18/12/2017 are available in the commission website (http://www.tspsc.gov.in)"
The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that a candidate is certainly required to possess essential qualification in terms of the recruitment rules and he has gone to the extent in holding that persons having higher qualification need not be considered as prescribed in the advertisement even though some Rules have been issued by the selecting body i.e., TPSC.
The order passed by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 4 to 10 reads as under:
"4. It has been contended by the petitioners that they are fully eligible and qualified to be appointed to the post of Extension Officer Grade-I (Supervisor) in Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare Department and the 2nd respondent had issued Notification No.66/2017, dated 18.12.2017 inviting applications for the said post. The petitioners submit that as per the Notification, the qualifications prescribed for the post of Extension Officer Grade-I (Supervisor) in Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare Department are as under:
Post Code
Name of the Post
Educational qualifications as specified by the department of WD, CW & DW Dept., vide G.O.Ms.No.14, Department of Women, Children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (ESTT-A2), dt. 27.06.2013
1
Extension Officers Grade-I (Supervisor) in Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare Department
1) Must possess a Bachelor's Degree in Home Science/Bachelor's Degree in Social Work (OR)
2) Degree in Sociology; OR
3) B.Sc. [Hons.] - Food Science & Nutrition; OR
4) B.Sc., - Foof & Nutrition, Botany/Zoology & Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry; OR
5) B.Sc. - Applied Nutrition & Public Health,
Botany/Zoology & Chemistry; OR
6) B.Sc. - Clinical Nutrition & Diebetics, Botany/Zoology & Chemistry; OR
7) B.Sc, - Applied Nutrition, Botany/Zoology & Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry; OR
8) B.Sc, - Food Sciences & Quality Control, Zoology/Botany & Chemistry/Biological Chemistry; OR
9) B.Sc. - Food Sciences & Management, Botany/Zoology & Chemistry/Biological Chemistry; (OR)
10) B.Sc, - Food Tehnology & Nutrition, Botany/Zoology & Chemistry; (OR)
11) B.Sc, - Food Technology & Management, Botany/Zoology & Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry.
After issuance of the said Notification, respondents have issued an addendum on 11.01.2018 to the effect that the candidates/aspirants who wish to apply to the post of Extension Officer Grade-I (Supervisor) vide Notification No.66/2017, dated 18.12.2017 to take note that in view of G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 20.09.2003, the candidates who possess higher qualification than the prescribed qualification and the candidates with higher qualification without the prescribed qualification shall also be considered for selection along with candidates who have the prescribed qualification only and in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 10.05.2000, G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 27.06.2013, G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 31.05.2016, preferential qualifications are also prescribed to the post of Extension Officer Grade-I (Supervisors-Grade-I). Pursuant to the said Addendum issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners became qualified even though they do not possess the requisite qualifications as originally notified. Pursuant to the addendum dated 11.01.2018, the petitioners had responded to the said notification and participated in the selection process and after going through regular selection process, the petitioners have fared decently well and all the petitioners have come within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of Extension Officer Grade-I (Supervisor). The petitioners submit that at the time of certificate verification before issuing appointment orders, the case of petitioners are not considered on the ground that they do not possess the requisite qualifications as set out in the original notification. The petitioners submit that they have got post-graduate qualification and in terms of addendum, they are fully eligible and qualified to be appointed to the post of Extension Officer, Grade -I. Therefore, counsel appearing for petitioners contend that in view of higher qualifications, they cannot be non-sued for appointment to the post of Extension Officer, Grade-I, and contend that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petitions, directing the respondents to treat the higher qualification of the petitioners as equivalent qualification and to declare that the petitioners are fully eligible and qualified to be appointed to the post of Extension Officer, Grade-I in terms of addendum dated 11.01.2018 and further direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as they are within the zone of consideration and secured merit.
The learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of Advocate-General has appeared on behalf of respondents and contended that the addendum issued in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 20.09.2003 is not framed in its right spirit. It was issued way-back in September 2003 and if G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 20.09.2003 is read in its entirety, then, the object with which the said G.O. was issued, will be defeated and mere issuance of addendum would not give any right to the petitioners to seek appointment to the post of Extension Officer and the qualifications are prescribed as per the recruitment rules. If the contention raised by the petitioners that their cases should be considered for appointment to the post of Extension Officer, Grade-I without any requisite qualifications as set out in the special Rules is accepted, it may lead to a chaotic situation and the purpose of prescribing certain qualifications as per recruitment rules itself would be defeated. As far as this ad hoc rule which was issued vide G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 20.09.2003 is concerned, the said G.O. was issued by the then State of Andhra Pradesh as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Thiwari & others v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh (1998 (2) SCC 332). The said G.O., if to be taken to its logical conclusion, may lead to a very chaotic situation as persons without prescribed qualifications but with higher qualifications in the form of post-graduation in the unconnected subject also become eligible. That is not the purport of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra. If G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 20.09.2003 is read in its entirety, would make it abundantly clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred above, held that a higher qualification which is prescribed for a particular scheme, cannot be considered as violative of Article 14. If candidates with higher qualifications are available, choosing them instead of candidates with inferior qualifications is not violative of Article 14 or 16.
In another case in Md.Riazul Osman Gani v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur (2000 (1) SCALE 508), it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed, cannot be rational.
By following the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 20.09.2003 to the effect that direct recruitment to various categories of posts in public service shall be as per the qualifications prescribed in the rules governing such posts. In several cases, it is noticed that the candidates with higher qualifications are appearing for selections and are claiming for their appointment, even though they do not possess the prescribed qualifications. In those set of circumstances, the State Government had come up with G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 20.09.2003. While framing the ad hoc Rule, it was incorrectly framed to the following effect;
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules or Special Rules or any other rule governing the post, for the direct recruitment the candidate who possesses higher qualification than the prescribed qualification and the candidate with higher qualification without the prescribed qualification shall also be considered for selection along with candidates who have the prescribed qualification only."
The second limb of this ad hoc rule is contrary to the object for which the said ad hoc rule itself was framed. Therefore, the Special Government Pleader contends that the second limb of the ad hoc rule to the effect that "Candidates who possess higher qualification than prescribed qualification shall also be considered", is not the object for which the ad hoc rule is framed and contends that if G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 20.09.2003 is to be taken to its logical conclusion, it may run contrary to the qualifications prescribed in the Special Rules, therefore, the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 20.09.2003 cannot be extended to the petitioners merely because the 2nd respondent had issued an addendum, despite the petitioners not possessing the requisite qualifications as mentioned in the Special Rules.
This Court is of the considered view that though the petitioners were made eligible to appear for the post of Extension Officer Grade-I pursuant to the addendum dated 11.01.2018, the case of the petitioners cannot be considered for appointment to the said post, as they do not possess the prescribed qualifications as per the recruitment Rules. If the argument of the petitioners is to be accepted, any post-graduate candidate can stake claim irrespective of their not possessing requisite qualifications, in which event, the purpose of prescribing specific qualifications in the Special Rules itself would be defeated. The object of prescribing relevant and requisite qualifications as per the Special Rules is to see that the candidates should have got minimum knowledge to discharge the duties and if the ad hoc rule is to be made applicable in respect of post notified, it may lead to chaotic situation and persons do not having relevant qualifications as prescribed in the rules, would be discharging their duties as Extension Officers. That is not the object with which the Special Rules are framed. Mere issuance of addendum with the object that the 2nd respondent would follow G.O.Ms.No.282, dated 20.09.2003 would not give any legal right for the petitioners to claim appointment to the post of Extension Officer, Grade-I, though they do not have requisite qualifications. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
The writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs."
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued before this Court that because an addendum has been issued based upon the Government Memo dated 20.09.2003, even though the appellants, who are not holding essential qualifications, are entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Extension Officers. The Recruitment Rules governing the field were notified way back in the year 2000 to be more specific on 10.05.2000 and the Recruitment Rules provide qualifications for the post of Extension Officers. The relevant statutory provisions under the recruitment rules are reproduced as under:
Sl.
No.
Category
Method of
appointment
Qualifications
Appointing
authority
Rate
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
Category-I Class-A Extension Officer Grade-I (Supervisor)
i) By direct recruitment
i) Must possess a Bachelor's Degree in Home Science/B.S.W.
ii) Aptitude to work in rural, Tribal and
Urban Slum area
Regional Deputy Director
30%
ii) By transfer
By transfer
from among V.D.Os., Grade-I (W)
iii) By promotion
a) from among Extension Officers Grade-II (Supervisor (W) ICDS
b) Teachers working in W.D. &
C.W. Dept. (Creches, Balwadies, Balavihars, State Homes, Service Homes W & C.W. Centres and also Women Welfare Organisers working in women welfare branches (G.O.Ms.No.21, W&CW, dt. 13.07.2000)
c) from V.D.Os(W) Grade-II
i) should be an approved probationer.
ii) should have completed 3 years of service.
i) should be an approved probationer.
ii) should have completed 3 years of service.
i) should be an approved probationer
ii) should have completed 3 years of service
i) should be an approved probationer
ii) should have completed 3 years of
service
R.D.D.
R.D.D.
R.D.D.
R.D.D.
10%
50%
50%
50%
2
Category-II Class-A
Extension Officer (Grade-II) (Supervisor)
i) By Direct recruitment
a) From among eligible anganwadi workers including those working in
R.A.S.S. Tirupati
b) From the
category of coordinators/ instructors (W) etc. i.e., teaching staff of M.L.T.C.
run by A.P.A.U,
A.W.T.Cs.
voluntary organisation including R.A.S.S. and T.B.M.P.P.
c) from among the category of mobile crèche teachers (women)
i) should have passed S.S.C.
ii) should not have completed 45 years of age as on 1st July of the recruiting year
iii) should have 10 years of continuous service as Anganwadi worker as on 1st July of the recruiting year
i) should have passed S.S.C.
ii) should not have completed 45 years of age as on 1st July
of the recruitment
year
iii) should have put in a continuous service of 10 years as on 1st July of the recruitment year
i) should have passed S.S.C.
ii) should not have completed 45 years of age as on 1st July of the recruitment year.
iii) should have continuous service of
10 years as Mobile
Creche Teacher
R.D.D.
R.D.D.
R.D.D.
80%
10%
10%
In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition, as the appellants are not having essential qualification prescribed under the recruitment rules. The learned Single Judge has rightly after placing reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Md. Riazul Osman Gani v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur 2000 (1) SCALE 508 has dismissed the writ petition. In the considered opinion of this Court, the action of the authority in not selecting the candidates not possessing essential qualifications for the post advertised does not warrant any interference and, therefore, merely because an addendum was issued de horse of recruitment rules, it does not create any right in favour of the appellants. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.