The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs T Rajendra Reddy

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO: 640 OF 2022

¶6

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated.21.12.2021 in WP No.20844 of 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶7

Between;

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,^GunturDist.

¶9

The Director, School Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna Dist. at Vijayawada. 1075.

¶10

The District Educational Officer and Secretary District Selection Committee, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam.

¶11

...Appellants

¶12

AND

¶13

T Rajendra Reddy, S/o. T. Muni Reddy, aged about 42 years, Occ. Retd. Army, R/o. Appinapalli Village and Post, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶14

The National Council for Teacher Education, rep. by The Regional Director, G-7, Sector-10, Dwaraka, Land Mark, Near Metro, New^Delhi-1

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

lA NO; 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders passed in W.P.No.20844 of 2021, Dt.21-122021.

¶18

lA NO; 2 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying^{thatinthecircumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay Of 07 days in fling of the present writ appeal and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the Respondent No. 2 in the Writ Appeal No. 640 to file the Counter Affidavit in the above Writ Appeal.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the respondent No. 1 in the Writ Appeal^{No.640of2022tofilethe} counter affidavit in the above Writ Appeal.

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant: GP FOR SERVICES - III

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P V N KIRAN KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL)

¶27

The Court made the following order:

¶28

1

¶29

THE HON*BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶30

AND

¶31

THE HON*BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶32

W.A. No. 640 of 2022

¶33

JUDGMENT;- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar)

¶34

Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2. There is no representation on behalf of the private Respondent^No.l.

¶35

The facts on hand are akin to the facts dealt with by this Bench while disposing of W.A. No. 1255 of 2023.^The issue that arose and considered by the learned Single Judge is also similar to the issue that arose and was considered by this Bench in the top noted Writ Appeal. The Appellant therein was a candidate and the Appellants herein are^the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Director, School Education,^and the District Educational Officer and Secretary District Selection Committee, who are before this Court in this IntraCourt Appeal being aggrieved by the relief granted by the learned Single Judge in the following terms:

¶36

2

¶37

“6. It is the specific contention of the teamed counsel for the petitioner that the college in question which has issued Certificate in Teaching to the petitioner is recognized institution and in support of the same, he relies on the list of recognized institutions downloaded from the website. Specific assertions are made in para No. 5 of the afifdavit in this regard and the same^arenot rebutted by respondent No. 4 at least by giving instructions, if the same not correct or tme. Therefore,^the speciifc statement made by the petitioner in the light of the material supporting his case deserves consideration. The respondents, more particularly respondent No. 4 is expected to respond sensibly to the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent seeking a clariifcation with reference to the Certificate of Teaching, issued in favour of^the petitioner without any delay, as it is concerning the job of a candidate. The inaction of the 4th respondent in this regard amounts to abdication of duties and cannot be appreciated. The 2nd respondent though addressed a communication on 07.03.2021, appears to have not persuaded the matter thereafter leaving the petitioner,ⁱⁿ lurch. The lackadaisical attitude of the respondent^No.4 resulted in denial of valuable services by the petitioner^to the student community. The delay on the part of the respondents cannot be countenanced in the light of^the material available on record and liable to be declared as unjust and unreasonable. 7. Under the aforementioned circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue placement orders to^the petitioner forthwith to enable him to discharge duties as Secondary Grade Teacher. In the event, the Certificate of

¶38

/■

¶39

3

¶40

Teaching issued by the College in question is not recognized, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would be at liberty to take necessary action after issuing appropriate notice to the petitioner and following due procedure, as contemplated under Law. No order as to costs. ” 3) The short issue involved, is the equivalence of degree course undergone by the Petitioner in comparison with^the stipulated one. This Court, after noticing the law, in this regard, has been pleased to hold in paragraph Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of W.A. No. 12755 of 2023, as under:

¶41

In this regard, the Honl'ble Apex Court in the case of Basic Education Board, U.P Vs. Upendra Rai and others^ was pleased to observe in paragraph Nos. 14^& 15 as under:

¶42

The respondent admittedly got appointment after the Circular dated 11.08.1997 and hence this Circular applies to him. Admittedly, the respondent does not possess the qualification mentioned in the said Circular. He does not either possess BTC, Hindustani Teaching Certificate, JCT or Certificate of Teaching. The D.Ed. Certificate is no longer regarded as equivalent to BTC after the circular dated 11.08.1997. This was a policy decision of the U.P. Government, and it is well settled that the Court cannot interfere with

¶43

2008 AIR-SCW 1560

¶44

4

¶45

policy decisions of the Government unless it is in violation of some statutory or constitutional provision. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent was not entitled to be appointed as Assistant Master of a Junior Basic School in U.P.

¶46

Grant of equivalence and/or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should be exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it. ” 8. Further, in case of Devender Bhaskar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others^, the Horfble Apex Court pleased to observe on the issue of equivalenceⁱⁿ paragraph Nos. 19 to 26 as under:

¶47

“19. The documents. Exhibit P2 to P4 do not claim that the course in question has been recognized as equivalent to two year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Educational Department. 20. We have already noticed that one of the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Arts and Crafts teacher as per the

¶48

^ 2021 see Online SC 1116

¶49

5

¶50

advertisement dated 20.07.2006 is a “two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department.” It was made clear by the Industrial Training and Vocational Educational Department, Haryana, that diploma in Art and Craft Course by the Kurukshetra University is conducted through distance education and that this course cannot be equated with two year diploma in Art and Craft Course awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department. Recognition of the said Course awarded by the State of Haryana, as held by the High Court, is entirely different from its equivalence. When the experts in the Educational Department have held the diploma in Art and Craft awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in equalizing them. 21. In Mohammad Shujat Ali Vs. Union of India, it was held that the question regarding equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications. It was further held that where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body, then the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided ^ by technical insights necessary for the purpose

¶51

6

¶52

of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government unless it based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or IS irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong.

¶53

In J.Ranga Swamy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, this Court held that it is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for various posts. 23. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Lata Arun, this Court held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It was held thus: “13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualiifcation should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority. ”

¶54

In Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannotfpe implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to

¶55

7

¶56

equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether a distance education course was equivalent to the degree of M.A (English) of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to show that the distance education course had been recognized as such. 25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad, it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionality of various qualifications, course content leading up to the acquisition of various qualifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed qualifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine. 26. Having regard to the above, in our view, the High Court has erred in holding that the diploma/degree in Art and Craft given by the Kurukshetra University is equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana. ”

¶57

8

¶58

From the reading of the above, it is apparent that^the issue of equivalence of Degree is a policy matter andⁱⁿ the exclusive domain of the State. That being the settled position in law, it was not open for the authorities^other than the competent authority namely the State to take^a decision on the equivalence of the Degree. ”

¶59

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the facts involved and the issue arising^inthe instant appeal, are squarely covered by the law laid down by the HonlDle Apex Court, as noted supra.

¶60

From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the issue of equivalence of Degree is a matter of policy^andinthe exclusive domain of the State. That being the settled position in law, it was not open for the authorities other than the competent authority namely the State to take a decision on the equivalence of the Degree.

¶61

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the instant Writ Appeal could be disposed of by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge as^under:

¶62

i) The impugned proceeding initiated by the Commissioner^of School Education is hereby set-aside.

¶63

9

¶64

ii) The Commissioner of School Education is directed to take up the issue regarding the equivalence of Degree and place^the relevant papers before the Secretary, Education Department of Andhra Pradesh. The Secretary shall look into the same and issue appropriate proceedings with regard to the equivalence of the Degree within a period of six (06)^weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶65

iii) Liberty is reserved to the competent authority to start proceedings afresh against the appellant/respondent^inthe event the State adversely holds with regard to the equivalence of the Degrees.

¶66

Accordingly, the W.A. is disposed of. There shall be no

¶67

order as to costs.

¶68

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

Sd/-V.DIWAKAR DEPUTYj^EGISTRAR SE OFFICER

¶71

To, 1. The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher^{Education,<^-7,Sector-} 10 Dwaraka, Land Mark, Near Metro, New Delhi-1 2. One CC to Sri P V N Kiran Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar, Central Government^{Counsel[OPUC]} 4. Two CCs to GP for Services - 111, High Court of^{AndhraPradesh.[OUT]}

¶72

Two CD Copies

RAM gl

/ /.

HIGH COURT

,v;

:20/02/2024

ORDER

WA.No.640 of 2022

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. T Rajendra Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. T Rajendra Reddy

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

Chinnamsetty Raju, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinnamsetty Raju, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Union of India, Vs a Shankar

The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (Aptransco) Vs Bharthipudi Venkata Ramana

The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (Aptransco) Vs Bharthipudi Venkata Ramana

The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Labour