Dismissed

K. Krishna Kishore v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2021WP/7024/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged disqualification from recruitment as Junior Assistant cum Typist, arguing skills sufficed. Court dismissed writ, holding qualification for a specific elective computer subject was mandatory. Adverse inference drawn as petitioner failed to prove possession of prescribed educational qualifications despite technical proficiency.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Court held that the petitioner did not possess the requisite educational qualifications and therefore had no right to seek a direction order under Article 226 of the Constitut

K. Krishna Kishore Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶2

WP.No.7024 of 2020

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶5

“To issue a direction order or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in eliminating the petitioner from participating in the recruitment process to the post of Junior Assistant cum Typist (J.A.C.T) in the 2nd Respondent University as per its notification bearing No.01/S.C.R-IlI/2019, dated 11.02.2019 as arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to write Computer Proficiency Test scheduled to be held from 30.03.2020 onwards and pass…”

¶6

This Court has heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. N.Anusha, learned standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent (main answering respondent), the Government Pleader for Agriculture and Cooperation and Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, standing counsel for APPSC.

¶7

The petitioner before this Court is questioning the action of the respondents in eliminating him from participating in the recruitment process to the post of Junior Assistant/Typist in the 2^nd respondent-University.

¶8

Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner argued with his usual force that the respondents have unlawfully eliminated the petitioner from participating in the

¶9

¶10

selection process. He points out that in the notification in question, dated 11.02.2019, the educational qualifications are as below:

¶11

Name of the Post	Educational Qualification
JUNIOR ASSISTANT-cum-TYPIST (JACT) in Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Guntur.	1. A University Degree and a Diploma in Computer Application from an Institute recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh/University/Compet ent authority who offers the
	Diploma Courses in
	Computer Application (Duration of Diploma: Minimum of six(6) months)
	(OR)
	B.C.A. Degree
	(OR)
	A Degree with Computer Science as one of the elective subjects.
	AND
	2. A pass in Government Technical examination in
	Typewriting in English by the Lower grade.

¶12

Learned counsel vehemently argues that the petitioner is qualified and that he has necessary proficiency and the skills. He points out that pursuant to an interim order passed, the petitioner has taken the examination and the results are kept in sealed cover. Relying upon the averments in his affidavit and also the reply affidavit filed, the learned counsel argues that the petitioner possesses an MSc., Mathematics with Systems Theory and Computer Modeling as one of his elective subjects. Therefore, he argues that the petitioner is eligible to apply and to compete. He also

¶13

¶14

possesses type writing lower grade qualification. Relying upon the mark sheets filed with the reply affidavit, the learned counsel argues that a reading of the mark sheets would clearly disclose that the petitioner has the necessary qualifications. According to him, in the syllabus in an MSc., „C‟ Programming course is also included and the petitioner, therefore, has the qualification to write the „C‟ programmes and other basic Computer Programmes. Hence, he submits that the syllabus in MSc., Mathematics and typewriting lower Grade qualification make him eligible for the post.

¶15

This Court after hearing learned counsel had re-opened the matter once to seek a clarification whether the M.Sc., qualification is a ground to eliminate a candidate. Learned counsel argued that the case law is not very clear and that there is no discernable ratio in any of the cases. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner possesses the skills/degree required and therefore, he should be considered for selection and the writ petition should be allowed.

¶16

Smt. N.Anusha, standing counsel argues that the petitioner‟s application was rejected as he did not possesses the basic Computer Course Certificate and that the petitioner did not produce the Certificates to show that he had a Degree with Computer Science as one of the elective subjects. Learned counsel argues very simply that once a qualification is prescribed, the petitioner must have the same qualifications. Even if the petitioner is over qualified, he may

¶17

¶18

not be eligible according to the learned counsel and that merely possessing the knowledge of computers and their applications is not enough since for the purpose of selection, it was made clear that the petitioner should have a University Degree and a Diploma in Computer Application/ a Degree with Computer Science as one of the elective subjects. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner did not produce any certificate to show that he has one of the three qualifications mentioned above. Therefore, she submits that his application was rejected.

¶19

Learned Government Pleader and the standing counsel for APPSC and Sri N.Ramachandra Murthy, argue on similar lines and stated that as the petitioner did not have the necessary „immediate‟ qualification, he had to be disqualified. They adopt the arguments of the learned standing counsel.

¶20

COURT: This Court after hearing the learned counsel notices that the qualifications that are prescribed for the examination and the syllabus particularly paper-II deals with the secretarial abilities of a candidate. The test is in four parts, which are sub-divided as parts (A) to (E), which are as follows:

¶21

SYLLABUS

¶22

The test shall comprise the following four parts:

¶23

Name of the part	Name of the question to be answered	Marks
Part A	Example: Typing a letter/passage/paragraph (about 100-1250 words) in MS-Ward	15

¶24

¶25

Part B	Example: Preparation of a Table/Graph in MS-Excel	10
Part C	Example: Preparation of Power Point Presentations/Slides (Two) on MS-Power Point.	10
Part D	Example: Creation and manipulation of data bases.	10
Part E	Example: Displaying the content of E-mail (Inbox)	05
	Total	50

¶26

The contents are further described in the next few pages and they essentially relate to secretarial assistance, creating graphs, creating a new presentations using power point and browsing the net, sending and receiving e–mail, creating a document using MS words etc.

¶27

In the case of the petitioner, it is very interesting to note that despite the long arguments, he has not stated anywhere about his degree and a diploma/B.C.A degree or a degree with computer science as an elective subject. He produced his post-graduate qualifications and is relying upon the same. In the writ affidavit, in para 2, it is mentioned that he is a post graduate in M.Sc. Mathematics with specialization in System Theory and Computer Modeling. He has passed this examination from JNTU College of Engineering, Hyderabad. He talks of his type writing skill and about having obtained a qualification in 1996. The documents filed with the writ affidavit are provisional certificates and the degree certificate for M.Sc., Mathematics only with System Theory and Computer Modeling. The type

¶28

¶29

writing lower Grade certificate is also filed. Even with the reply affidavit that is filed, after the counter affidavit, the petitioner has only filed his mark lists in M.Sc., Mathematics with System Theory and Computer Modeling and the syllabus of M.Sc. Mathematics. In the entire reply affidavit also he did not state what is his graduate degree. He reiterates that he possesses M.Sc., Mathematics with System Theory and Computer Modeling.

¶30

This Court has to therefore draw an adverse inference. The qualification necessary is a University Degree and a diploma in Computer Application or B.C.A Degree or a Degree with Computer Science as an elective subject. It is not stated that the petitioner possesses any of the three. As noted, the skills necessary are very basic and rudimentary. The petitioner will have to do secretarial jobs as mentioned above like creating an e-mail, sending e-mail, browsing internet etc. Therefore, the qualifications necessary if they are carefully analysed talk of an “University Degree” along with „a Diploma in Computer Application or a Degree with Computer Science as one of its elective subjects.‟ An elective subjects is one whether the students chooses a course unlike an optional subject as a subject which a student must pass.

¶31

Therefore, it is clear that even after hearing the writ is completed, the petitioner has not disclosed that he possesses the necessary qualification namely an University Degree with a Diploma in Computer Application/a Degree with Computer

¶32

¶33

Science as one of the elective subjects. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have a B.C.A degree either. The purpose of prescribing qualifications is to ensure that the employer gets an employee with the skills that the employer himself needs. This is an area which is wholly within the domain of the employer. It is not for the Courts to determine as to who is qualified to be appointed to a post when its wisdom the employer has decided to prescribe certain standards or qualifications. Every applicant must in the opinion of this Court possess the qualifications prescribed. Petitioner admittedly has not challenged these qualifications. His case is that he possesses the necessary qualifications. The necessary qualifications as mentioned earlier are very simple, but the petitioner has not chosen to prove that he has the necessary „basic‟ qualifications. For the purpose of selection, the employer has fixed certain criteria which have to be adhered to otherwise the concept of recruitment and notification will be given a go by. P.M.Latha and antoehr v. State of Kerala and others¹ is dealing with TTC (Trained Teachers‟ Certificate). This was the prescribed educational qualification for recruitment of Teachers. But candidates with higher qualification of a B.Ed. were admitted to write the examination. It was held that the B.Ed. candidates who have a higher qualification are not eligible to be included in the qualification list. The Supreme Court clearly held whether for

¶34

1 (2003) 3 SCC 541

¶35

¶36

a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates of TTC qualifications or B.Ed. qualification is a matter of recruitment policy and refused to interfere. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that the B.Ed., candidates who have a higher qualification cannot apply for the post.

¶37

In the case on hand, as mentioned earlier, a reading of the writ affidavit or the reply does not show that the petitioner has the Degree that is necessary along with a Diploma or an elective Course in Computer Application. Even if he is adept with a computer or that he has the necessary skills in computer and typing etc., will not make him eligible for the post unless the basic threshold qualification namely, the University Degree and a Diploma in Computer Application or a Degree with Computer Science as one of the elective subjects is crossed. The petitioner‟s Degree qualification could have been a B.Sc./B.A Mathematics and he could have learnt Computer knowledge along with his typewriting skills. This will not make him eligible. This Court has to therefore hold that the petitioner is not qualified for the post. As he does not have a right, he cannot seek a Mandamus.

¶38

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶39

___________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

¶40

Date: 09.09.2021 KLP

K. Krishna Kishore v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Krishna Kishore v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lankayapalle Vara Prasad Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Badai Murali, Vs the State of Ap

Ch.Venkateswaramma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Shavukari Meena Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kandula Srinivasa Reddy Memorial College of Engineering Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kandula Srinivasa Reddy Memorial College of Engineering, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh