Allowed

S. Murali, v. The Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Mar 2022WP/23514/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the order cancelling the petitioners' appointment lacked specific reasons regarding whether their B.Com degree qualifies as 'Arts and Humanities'. The order was quashed, directing the authority to conduct a fresh enquiry with recordable reasons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 30.11.2019 quashed; fresh enquiry directed to record reasons comparing B.Com with Arts & Humanities; petitioners to be appointed if B.Com is covered.

S. Murali, Vs The Principal Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI WRIT PETITION No. 23514 of 2020

¶2

JUDGMENT

¶3

Heard Sri P. V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Aswath Narayan, learned GP for Services – I and perused the material available on record.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶5

“...to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the action of the Respondents in removing the petitioners from the service of post of Ward Welfare and Development Secretary Grade-II vide Roc.No.931/2019/Al/CTR dated 30.11.2019 by confirming the earlier Order dated 06.10.2019 Roc.No.758/2019/A2/DSC/2019 and not paying their salary during their working period, as arbitrary and violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service as Ward Welfare and Development Secretary Garde-II with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary etc., and pass such order or orders...”

¶6

Pursuant to the Notification No.06/2019 of the Municipal Administration Department, Guntur, dated 26.07.2019, calling applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Ward Welfare & Development Secretary (Grade-II) in urban local bodies, the petitioners applied and after conducting examination on 08.09.2019, they were declared selected. The District Level Committee and the Regional Level Committee examined their documents and orders of appointment were issued on 02.10.2019, pursuant to which, the petitioners joined duty. Later on, the petitioners’ appointments were cancelled in proceedings Roc.No.758/2019/A2/DSC/2019, dated 06.10.2019 on the ground that the petitioners were not eligible for appointment to the said posts as the

¶7

¶8

RNT, J WP.No.23514 of 2020

¶9

petitioners’ qualification was B.Com degree and not “Graduate in Arts and Humanities and above”. The petitioners filed W.P.No.16694 of 2019 challenging the proceedings dated 06.10.2019 which was disposed of, vide Order dated 25.10.2019. The order of cancellation was set aside. It was directed that the 4^th respondent may conduct an enquiry by following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law and till completion of that enquiry the petitioners be continued in the posts, for which they were appointed. The operative portion of the judgment in W.P.No. 16694 of 2019 is reproduced as under:

¶10

“7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, the respondents may continue the enquiry into the matter, as to whether the petitioners were having eligibility for submitting their applications, whether their appointment can be terminated and whether they can be appointed for the posts notified or not. However, it is obvious that the petitioners’ services were terminated by cancelling their appointment orders without any notices to them and therefore, the 4^th respondent may conduct an enquiry and till completion of that enquiry, the petitioners be continued in the posts, for which they were appointed. The respondents may conduct the enquiry by following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law.

¶11

With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.”

¶12

Thereafter, the petitioners were called for enquiry, which they attended on 23.11.2019 and submitted all educational qualification documents. The 4^th respondent passed the proceedings Roc. No.931/2019/A2/CTR, dated 30.11.2019 recording that the petitioners were ineligible to the post of Ward Welfare and Development Secretary Grade-II, as per the notification dated 26.07.2019. Challenging the said proceedings dated 30.11.2019, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the order under challenge any reason has not been recorded as to why the

¶14

¶15

RNT, J WP.No.23514 of 2020

¶16

petitioners were not eligible. Except stating that the petitioners did not fulfil the requisite qualifications as per the notification, nothing has been stated as to why the qualification of B.Com degree possessed by the petitioners was not covered under the qualification of “Graduate in Arts and Humanities and above”.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per annexure, the certificate from Acharya Nagarjuna University, dated 27.12.2019, in case of other students, the Bachelor of Commerce Degree is covered under the “Arts and Humanities” making such students eligible for Government Jobs. Similarly, as per annexure, the proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor, Andhra University, dated 31.10.2019, shows that the B.Com Degree granted by the Andhra University is also considered under “Humanities and Social Sciences Stream”. Similarly, Adikavi Nannaya University also issued a certificate, dated 26.09.2019, to the effect that B.Com Degree comes under the “Art and Humanities”. Even, as per the certificate by the Joint Secretary, University Grants Commission under Right to Information Act, dated 11.09.2020, under the Scheme of Major Research Project (MRP), when the scheme was in operation, the subject ‘commerce’ was covered under “arts/humanities/social sciences”. These documents though do not relate to the petitioners, but on the strength it is submitted that even a B.Com degree, could be covered under the qualification of “Graduate in Arts and Humanities and above”, as notified.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are qualified for the appointment to the post of “Ward Welfare & Development Secretary (Grade-II)” as the degree in commerce, possessed by the petitioners, would be covered under the qualification of “Graduate in Arts and Humanities and above”, but the authorities did not consider this aspect in correct perspective. The authorities had given

¶19

¶20

RNT, J WP.No.23514 of 2020

¶21

appointment to the petitioners, on due verification of their documents. The petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing in the enquiry conducted by the 4^th respondent and just their documents were got deposited. If the petitioners had been due opportunity they would have submitted the copy of the documents mentioned above for consideration of authority, but for want of any notice the relevant documents could not be submitted.

¶22

Learned counsel further submits that one W.P.No.20371 of 2020 by some other petitioners, against their termination/cancellation of appointment on the same ground that B.Com degree is not covered under the qualification of “Graduate in Arts and Humanities and above”, was allowed by this Court, against which Writ Appeal No.291 of 2021 was also dismissed.

¶23

Sri Aswath Narayan, learned GP for Services – I submits that the documents being relied upon by the petitioners are of the dates subsequent to the passing of the order impugned, and any such document was not produced before the 4^th respondent, consequently, there was no occasion for the authority to take into consideration those documents.

¶24

I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.

¶25

The petitioners are B.Com graduates. The Educational Qualification for the post of Ward Welfare and Development Secretary Grade-II, as per the Notification, is ‘Graduate in Arts and Humanities’. The petitioners were appointed on 02.10.2019 and they joined. On 06.10.2019 their appointments were cancelled on the ground that they did not possess the educational qualification as per the notification. In W.P.No.16694 of 2019 filed by the petitioners against the order dated

¶26

¶27

RNT, J WP.No.23514 of 2020

¶28

06.10.2019, it was the bone of contention of the petitioners that B.Com can be considered as ‘humanities’ whereas the learned GP for Services – I contended that Bachelor of Commerce does not come under the category of ‘Arts & Humanities’. As it was a question of fact, this Court provided that the respondents may continue enquiry into the matter, but as the order impugned therein, was passed in violation of principles of natural justice the same was set aside. Paras - 6 and 7 of judgment in W.P.No. 16694 of 2019 are reproduced below:

¶29

“6. Therefore, it is a question of fact, which has to be considered basing on the material produced in that regard. According to the respondents, the Department has initiated enquiries against the irregular appointments made by the concerned officers. However, it is obvious that the petitioners were appointed and their appointment was terminated without issuing any notice which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders of cancellation passed by the 4^th respondent are liable to be set aside.

¶30

In the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, the respondents may continue the enquiry into the matter, as to whether the petitioners were having eligibility for submitting their applications, whether their appointment can be terminated and whether they can be appointed for the posts notified or not. However, it is obvious that the petitioners’ services were terminated by cancelling their appointment orders without any notices to them and therefore, the 4^th respondent may conduct an enquiry and till completion of that enquiry, the petitioners be continued in the posts, for which they were appointed. The respondents may conduct the enquiry by following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law.”

¶31

Perusal of the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 does not show any consideration on the moot point, if the B.Com, the qualification of the petitioners, can be covered under the notified educational qualification of ‘Graduate in Arts & Humanities’. Any reason is not assigned in the order as to why the petitioners’ such educational qualification does not fall under ‘Humanities’ which was the point raised in

¶32

¶33

RNT, J WP.No.23514 of 2020

¶34

the earlier petition, but being a question of fact and as the enquiry was being conducted the same was left to be considered in the enquiry as this Court directed that the enquiry may continue in the matter. It being a question of fact should have been determined by the respondents on comparative assessment of the syllabus/subjects etc., of the B.Com from the petitioners’ institution and the course of humanities.

¶35

On perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition, prima facie, it appears that the B.Com course in many institutions falls under the stream of ‘Art/Humanity & Social Sciences’.

¶36

In W.P.No. 20371 of 2020, this Court held that the impugned orders dated 02.12.2019 therein did not disclose any specific reason, except concluding that on perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioners, it was found that they were not eligible for the post of Ward Welfare and Development Secretary Grade-II. Except that conclusion, no other reason was assigned. This Court held that the order must be a speaking one and merely giving an opportunity of hearing is not enough. The recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim ensures that the decision is not a result of caprice whim or fancy but was arrived at after considering the relevant law and that decision was just. The said judgment was affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 291 of 2021 vide judgment dated 13.07.2021 re-affirming that reasons in the context of those proceedings, having regard to the nature of dispute, would mean the materials which the petitioners had placed for consideration and the conclusions which were derived from such consideration.

¶37

In the present case also, the conclusion has been recorded on perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioners, but the reason has not been assigned at all. In the present case this Court finds that the enquiry has not been conducted in a way it should have been conducted

¶38

¶39

RNT, J WP.No.23514 of 2020

¶40

nor on the moot point if B.Com is covered under ‘Arts & Humanities’. Merely saying that the petitioners are not qualified as they possess B.Com degree is not sufficient to disqualify them particularly when earlier they were appointed on the same qualification of B.Com degree.

¶41

Sri Aswath Narayan, tries to distinguish the judgment in W.P.No. 20371 of 2020, on the ground that in that case there was no enquiry conducted by the 4^th respondent, whereas in the present case enquiry was conducted, in which the petitioners were given opportunity to produce documents.

¶42

A perusal of the judgment dated 22.12.2020 in W.P.No. 20371 of 2020, at internal page-5, shows that the order dated 01.12.2019 impugned therein did not disclose any specific reason, except concluding that on perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioners in original, it is found that they are ineligible to the post of Ward Welfare and Development Secretary Grade-II.

¶43

It is relevant to reproduce the relevant paras at pages-4 & 5 of

¶44

judgment in W.P.No. 20371 of 2020 as under:

¶45

“In pursuance of the order passed in W.P.No. 16535 of 2019 dated 25.10.2019, the respondents appear to have conducted enquiry and these petitioners also appeared before the authorities during enquiry. However, the order impugned in the writ petition i.e. Roc.No.931/2019/A2/KDP dated 02.12.2019 did not disclose any reason, much less, specific reason as to the disqualification of these petitioners for being appointed as Ward Welfare and Development Secretary Grade-II, the operative portion of the impugned order of the first petitioner (similar orders were issued to the other petitioners also), reads as follows:

¶46

“Further, in pursuant of the Hon’ble High Court orders issued vide reference 13^th read above, Sri Cherukuri Babavali, S/o.Brahmaiah, R/o.YSR Kadapa District had been called for enquiry and he has attended the same on 23.11.2019 and submitted all Educational Qualifications Certificates. Upon perusal of all the documents submitted by him in original, it is found that he ie\s

¶47

¶48

RNT, J WP.No.23514 of 2020

¶49

ineligible for the post of Ward Welfare and Development Secretary Grade-II, as per the Notification No.6/2019 dated 27.07.2019 as he did not satisfy the educational qualification as mentioned in the notification No.6/2019 dated 26.07.2019.”

¶50

“Undoubtedly, the petitioners allegedly appeared for the examination, participated in the selection process, appointed to the said post and posted as Ward Welfare and Development Secretary Grade-II and the first respondent suddenly terminated their services. Sudden termination of services of the petitioners by the first respondent without affording any opportunity was challenged in W.P.No.16535 of 2019. However, the writ petition was allowed. Even now, the respondents are required to follow the procedure prescribed under law and the impugned order passed by the authorities shall disclose reasons. But, the operative portion of the impugned orders dated 02.12.2019 does not disclose any specific reason, except concluding that on perusal of the documents submitted by the petitioners in original, it is found that they are ineligible to the post of Ward Welfare and Development Secretary Grade-II. Except this conclusion, no other reason was assigned.”

¶51

From the aforesaid quoted part of the judgment, it is evident that in that case also an enquiry was conducted, and in such enquiry, only conclusions were recorded without disclosing the reasons as is the present case. The submission of the learned Govt.Pleader that as in the present case there is enquiry and as in W.P.No. 20371 of 2020 there was no enquiry conducted is devoid of any merit.

¶52

Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.11.2019 is quashed. The respondent No.4 shall make fresh enquiry into the educational qualification of the petitioners to record specifically if their B.Com course is covered under educational qualification of ‘Arts & Humanities’ as notified, on a comparative assessment of both the courses, recording reasons for either way decision. The petitioners are given liberty to submit the relevant documents, as annexed with this petition and such other documents as they consider to be relevant for

¶53

¶54

RNT, J WP.No.23514 of 2020

¶55

determination of the above question, before the respondent No.4, along with copy of this order for due consideration.

¶56

Consequent upon such enquiry, if the petitioners’ educational qualification of B.Com is found to be covered under the notified qualification of ‘Arts & Humanities’, the petitioners shall be appointed on the post in question.

¶57

Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of two months.

¶58

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶59

_______________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J

¶60

Date: 02.03.2022 Dsr

S. Murali, v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Murali, v. The Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Katikala Vinod Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Sk Abdul Rahim Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

C.Narasimhulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.K.Munwar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Eslavath Krishna Naik Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A.Simhachalam Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh