Dismissed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Smt. K.Rama Devi

Telangana HC24 Mar 2014WP/19032/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by the Government to set aside an Administrative Tribunal order granting promotions to nursing lecturers. The Court held that qualification title relates back to the date of the last examination and found the departmental officer lacked jurisdiction to review the promoction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions filed by the Government seeking to set aside the impugned order allowing promotions are dismissed.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Smt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.16632,19031, 19032 AND 19033 OF 2009

¶4

COMMON ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

These writ petitions are filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the common order, dated 21.11.2008, in O.A.Nos.7267, 7286, 7288 and 7287 of 2008 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and set aside the same.

¶6

2. The applicants, who were given promotion as Lecturers (Nursing), were reverted to their substantive posts in the feeder category vide proceedings, dated 30.8.2008, of petitioner No.2 herein. The said proceedings were under challenge before the Tribunal.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, by following Rule 26(a)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules, held that though the respondents/applicants in all the writ petitions passed the relevant qualifying examination i.e., M.Sc., (Nursing) on 6.9.2007, the last examination was held on 31.7.2007 i.e., prior to 01^st September of panel year and hence, their names should be considered for that panel year and accordingly, set aside the proceedings, dated 30.8.2008, of petitioner No.2 herein and allowed the Original Applications. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions are filed by the Government.

¶8

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services – I appearing for the petitioners/respondents contended that Special Rule No.5 of Andhra Pradesh College of Nursing Service Rules, 1996 prescribes that a candidate must possess M.Sc., degree in Nursing; that as per Rule

¶9

6(b) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, “the Rules”), the individuals, who possess the qualification as on the qualifying date i.e., as on 1.9.2007, are eligible to be included in the list for panel year 2007-2008, but, admittedly, the respondents herein passed M.Sc., (Nursing) on 6.9.2007 and therefore, as on the date of preparation of panels, they were not eligible to be listed in the panel and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶10

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/applicants contended that the applicants passed the requisite qualification and the test relates back to the date of writing of the last examination; that it is not in dispute that the respondents appeared for the last examination on 31.7.2007 though the results were declared on 6.9.2007 and therefore, the title to the right must have been acquired on the date of last examination; that petitioner No.2 has no power to review the order in view of Rule 24 of the Rules, as the Government alone is competent to review, that too, within a period of six months from the date of preparation of the panel and therefore, he prays to dismiss the writ petitions.

¶11

6. The facts are not in dispute. For promotion to the post of Lecturer in Nursing, a pass in M.Sc., (Nursing) is essential. The applicants appeared for the last examination in M.Sc., (Nursing) on 31.7.2007. The results were declared on 6.9.2007 and the certificates were issued by the University concerned on 10.9.2007. It is also not in dispute that the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, “D.P.C.”) met on 20.12.2007 and by that time, the panels were prepared by taking the eligible and qualified persons and given the promotions to the respondents herein. However, a Screening Committee, which met on 29.8.2008, reviewed the entire issue and also with regard to the panel of the eligible candidates and consequently, the reversion orders were issued.

¶12

7. Rule 24 of the Rules reads as follows:

¶13

“Revision of lists of approved candidates (panels) or list of eligible candidates for appointment by promotion or by transfer:-

¶14

(a) The State Government shall have the power to revise in any manner they consider suitable, any panel of approved candidates for appointment by transfer or by promotion to any category, class or service, prepared by a head of the department or any other authority subordinate to the head of the department, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by the special rules or these rules:

¶15

Provided that before revision of the panel is undertaken the cases for review should be placed before the D.P.C./Review D.P.C./Screening Committee and their recommendations obtained; ….”

¶16

8. Proviso to Clause (c) of Rule 24 of the Rules provides that a power of review of panel can be exercised by the Government within a period of six months provided the time limit of six months may, for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, be waived by the State Government. Ordinarily, if the Government wants to review the panel of approved candidates for appointment by promotion, the said exercise shall be done within a period of six months. No such power is conferred on petitioner No.2 to review the panel of approved candidates that was approved by the D.P.C. If any irregularities have been brought to his notice, then, certainly, he has to refer the issue to the Government to review the panel, which was prepared by the Head of the Department. Admittedly, that exercise has not been done in this case. Prima facie, the proceedings, dated 30.8.2008, issued by petitioner No.2 are without jurisdiction.

¶17

9. Ruling under F.R.26 (a)(2) reads as follows:

¶18

“In cases where the passing of an examination or test confers on a Government servant the title to any right, benefit or concession, such title should be deemed to have accrued on the day following the last day of the examination or test which he passed. In cases where the examination or test can be passed in instalments, the title to the right, benefit or concession will be deemed to have accrued on the day following the last day of the examination in the subject or subjects in which he has passed.”

¶19

From a reading of the above Ruling, it is clear that the date of passing of the test is not the criteria, but it relates back to the date of last examination written in the qualifying degree prescribed for the promotion. Admittedly, the respondents appeared for the last examination of M.Sc., (Nursing) on 31.7.2007, results were declared on 6.9.2007 and the necessary certificates have been issued on 10.9.2007, it relates back to the date of their examination. If that is taken into consideration, as on the cut off date i.e., on 1.9.2007, they are qualified to be promoted as Lecturers (Nursing). Therefore, the Tribunal rightly passed the impugned order and the same needs no interference by this Court, as there is no illegality or error of law apparent on the face of the record. Hence, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.

¶20

10. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

11. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶22

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU _______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶23

Date: 24.03.2014 AMD

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶25

WRIT PETITION Nos.16632,19031, 19032 AND 19033 OF 2009

¶26

DATE: 24.03.2014

¶27

AMD

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Smt. K.Rama Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Smt. K.Rama Devi

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

T. Narasimha Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Jeedi Dasthagiraiah , Medari Dastagiraiah, Vs Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal

G. Soundarya, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The Union of India, Vs B.N.Singh S/o. Brahmadeo Singh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Smt. P. Varalaxmi

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Principal Vs L. Tirupathi