Kothapalli Satya Krupa Vani, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETAIY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶11

DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶12

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not allotting weightage marks to the petitioner herein for the service rendered by her as Compounder (Veterinary)/Dairy Assistant in SV Gosamrakshanasala, TTD, Tirupati and not selecting her for appointment to the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant in pursuance of Notification issued by the

¶14

2

¶15

Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Vijayawada in the year 2023 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the Petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant and pass

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioner, dated 12-03-2024 for appointment to the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant by awarding weightage marks for the service rendered by her as Compounder (Veterinary)/Dairy Assistant in SV Gosamrakshanasala, TTD and pass

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant leave for filing of the counter affidavit in W.P.No. 11720of 2024 and pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.HEMANTH KUMAR VEMURI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

3

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶27

W.P.No.11720 of 2024

¶28

ORDER :

¶29

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not allotting weightage marks to the Petitioner for the service rendered by her as Compounder (Veterinary)/Diary Assistant in SV Gosamrakshanasala, TTD, Tirupati and not selecting her for appointment to the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant pursuant to the notification issued by the Director of Animal Husbandry as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

¶31

The Petitioner rendered services as Compounder (Veterinary/ Diary Assistant at SV Gosamrakshanasala, TTD, Tirupati. While so, a notification was issued by Respondent No.2 in the year 2023 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant in the A.P.Animal Husbandry Department, Vijayawada. As per clause 15.6 of the notification, weightage would be given to educationally qualified Gopalamithras/ Gopalamithra Supervisors/ 1962 paravets and outsourced / contractual man power for the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant at the rate of one and half mark for every completed period of six (6) months of satisfactory service

¶32

4

¶33

rendered in Animal Husbandry Department/ SVVU/ APDDCF/ 1962 paravets up to a maximum of 15 marks.

¶34

The Petitioner, having the requisite qualifications, applied for the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant and secured 49.60 marks out of 150 marks in the written examination and secured a rank of 234. On the basis of the marks and rank secured, the Petitioner was called for certificate verification on 23.01.2024, and her certificates were verified. However, the Petitioner was not selected and on enquiry, it was informed that weightage marks were not given for the services rendered by her at SV Gosamrakshanasala, TTD, Tirupati as the said weightage marks would only be extended for service rendered in the Animal Husbandry Department/ SVVU/ APDDCF/1962 paravets as mentioned in the notification. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶35

Heard Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

¶36

Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that the weightage marks should have been extended to the services rendered by the Petitioner at SV Gosamrakshanasala, TTD, Tirupati as the TTD is also an instrumentality of the State. However, it is stated that the Petitioner was discriminated against as the nature of

¶37

5

¶38

service rendered by the Petitioner in Gosamrakshanasala of TTD is similar to the service rendered by persons in the Animal Husbandry Department/ SVVU/ APDDCF/ 1962 paravets. A memo was also filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, wherein it is stated that the Respondents had extended weightage marks to the similarly placed employees while recruiting Veterinary Assistant Surgeons pursuant to the notification dated 05.01.2019.

¶39

Learned Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the notification is self-explanatory and it is the prerogative of the employer to give weightage to the work at specified institutions and that the employer cannot be compelled to extend the weightage marks to the institutions which are not mentioned in the notification. It is further contended that as the Petitioner worked in an institution which is not mentioned in the notification, the Petitioner cannot be given weightage marks.

¶40

Clause 15.6 of the notification reads as under.

¶41

15.6 WEIGHTAGE OF MARKS:

¶42

Weightage to educationally qualified Gopalamithras / Gopalamithra supervisors /1962 para vets and outsourced / contractual man power for the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant shall be given at the rate of one and half mark for every completed period of 6 months of satisfactory service rendered in Animal Husbandry Department / SVVU/ APDDCF /

¶43

6

¶44

1962 Paravets up to a maximum of 15 marks. The service rendered for less than 6 months shall be treated as NIL.

¶45

The Petitioner had worked as Daily Assistant in SV Gosamrakshanasala, TTD, Tirupati, which is not mentioned in the notification. The contention that the service rendered by the Petitioner as a Daily Assistant is similar to the service rendered in the Animal Husbandry Department/SVVU/APDDCF/ 1962 paravets is for the Respondent-State to examine these aspects as the issue involved in this case is regarding the equivalence.

¶46

In this regard, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Basic Education Board, U.P v. Upendra Rai and others¹ was pleased to observe in paragraph Nos.14 & 15 as under:

¶47

“14. 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 policy decisions of the Government unless it is in violation of some

¶48

1 2008 AIR SCW 1560

¶49

7

¶50

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.

¶51

15. 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 1 2008 AIR SCW 1560 the government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should be exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it.”

¶52

Further, in case of Devender Bhaskar and others v. State of Haryana and others² , the Hon‟ble Apex Court pleased to observe on the issue of equivalence in paragraph Nos.19 to 26 as under:

¶53

“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.

¶54

20. We have already noticed that one of the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Arts and Crafts teacher as per the 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,

¶55

2 2021 SCC Online SC 1116

¶56

8

¶57

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.

¶58

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 of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government 2 2021 SCC Online SC 1116 unless it based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated mala fides or is irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong.

¶59

22. 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.

¶60

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:

¶61

9

¶62

“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 qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority.”

¶63

24. In Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal, this Court has reiterated that equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to 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.

¶64

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.

¶65

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

¶66

10

¶67

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.”

¶68

From a reading of the above, it is apparent that the issue of equivalence of Degree/service is a policy matter and in the exclusive domain of the State.

¶69

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶70

(i) The Respondent-State is directed to examine whether the service rendered by the Petitioner as a Daily Assistant in SV Gosamrakshanasala, TTD, Tirupati is equivalent to the service rendered in the Animal Husbandry Department//SVVU/APDDCF/ 1962 paravets.

¶71

(ii) In the event the service rendered by the Petitioner is found to be equivalent, the weightage marks as mandated in clause 15.6 of the notification issued by Respondent No.2 shall be extended to the Petitioner and the Petitioner will be considered for appointment to the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant.

¶72

(ii) No order as to costs.

¶73

11

¶74

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand

¶75

dismissed.

¶76

___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶77

Date: 15.10.2025 KLP

Kothapalli Satya Krupa Vani, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kothapalli Satya Krupa Vani, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palle Krishna Vs the State of Ap

Gummethala Reddeiah Vs the State of Ap

Elugu Prasad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Amrutapudi Sekhar Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Totakura Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Amarlapudi Nirmala Santha Kumari Vs the State of Ap