HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 10784 of 1998 Between: Smt B. Pramila Raja Kumari. ..... PETITIONER AND The Govt. of A.P. rep. By its Principal Secretary, Education Dept. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 10784 of 1998 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to grant UGC scales of pay; benefits under the Career Advancement Scheme; and to release the increments due to the petitioner along with arrears, after relaxing the condition of obtaining 55% marks in her Post Graduate Degree course. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner passed M.Sc. in Zoology in the year 1965 from Madras Christian College, Madras; she worked as a Lecturer in Zoology at St.Joseph’s College for Women, Visakhapatnam for a period of four years in an aided vacancy; she joined the third respondent-College as a lecturer in Zoology with effect from 01.10.1980; she was selected by a duly constituted selection committee and her appointment was approved by the Osmania University by proceedings dated 27.03.1982; her appointment was also approved by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 29.06.1984. The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No. 1072, Education, dated 26.11.1976, accepting the recommendations made by a three member committee; pursuant thereto the revised 1976 scales of pay were granted to teachers of affiliated degree and post graduate colleges on condition that the teacher concerned had obtained first class or high second class marks in his/her post graduation. On the petitioner’s appointment as a lecturer, she was granted the scale of Rs.530-30-770-35-1050 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 396, dated 15.04.1982; and was directed to improve her percentage of marks within a period of three years from the date her appointment was approved by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 29.06.1984. The petitioner narrates the circumstances which rendered it difficult for her to improve the percentage of marks in her post graduation. Her claim to increments is based on discrimination and she would refer to the case of Vasumathi Raje, a lecturer in Chemistry in St.Joseph’s College for Women, Visakhapatnam, and Sri M. Rajendra Prasad, a lecturer in Politics, A.N.R. College, Gudivada, Krishna District, to submit that, in as much as these two lecturers were given the benefit of relaxation of the rigor of the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No. 396, dated 15.04.1982, the same benefit should be extended to her also; she should be given relaxation of obtaining 55% or more marks in her post graduation; and be paid increments, UGC scales of pay, and the benefits of Career Advancement Scheme. Under G.O.Ms.No. 396 Education (V) Department, dated 15.04.1982, the Government directed that one should possess 55% marks in post graduation at the time of appointment in the post of Lecturers/Junior Lecturers in the aided colleges; this condition should be relaxed in favour of those candidates who were appointed between the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No. 1072, Education, dated 26.11.1976 and the date of adoption of G.O.Ms.No. 1072, dated 26.11.1976 by the Universities concerned in the State; and, in respect of candidates possessing less than 55% marks and who were appointed after the date of adoption of the said G.O. by the Universities concerned, they should improve the percentage of marks within a period of three years from the date of issue of the Government Order, failing which they would not earn any future increments. The Government Order, however, made it clear that such candidates would continue to draw their pay in the present scale. While the Andhra University adopted G.O.Ms.No. 1072, dated 26.11.1976 on 01.07.1978, the Osmania University adopted the said G.O. on 11.01.1977. The petitioner is a Lecturer in a college affiliated to Osmania University and, since her appointment was subsequent to 11.01.1977, she is not entitled for relaxation of possession of 55% marks in her post graduate degree at the time of her appointment in the post of Lecturer. In accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 396, dated 15.04.1982 the petitioner was required to improve the percentage of her marks in post graduation within three years i.e. on or before 14.04.1985. It is not in dispute that even on the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. on 13.04.1998, the petitioner had not improved her qualification. In the additional counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents by the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, it is stated that the Andhra University Syndicate, in its meeting held on 05.09.1980, resolved that the Government be requested to modify the qualification rule prescribed for appointment of Lecturers in affiliated colleges in G.O.Ms.No. 1072, dated 26.11.1976 and acquisition of 55% marks may not be insisted for candidates with M.Phil or Ph.D degree; on the basis of the said resolution, the College authorities submitted a proposal to the Commissioner of Collegiate Education; and, since Sri M. Rajendra Prasad, lecturer in Zoology, possessed M.Phil degree, the condition of possessing 55% marks in post graduation was relaxed in his favour. With regards Vasumathi Raje, while the Government had granted such relaxation, it realised its mistake and issued show cause notice dated 13.09.1996 proposing to cancel the order of relaxation in as much as she neither secured 55% marks in her post graduation nor did she improve her qualification later. Thereafter the Government passed orders dated 14.02.1997 canceling the earlier order of relaxation. This Court, in Vasumathi Raje v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department[1], held that the Government did not have power to review its earlier order and, therefore, the earlier order of relaxation could not be set aside. Since Vasumathi Raje1 had retired from service this Court had directed that she should be given revised pensionary and other post terminal benefits. As is evident from the facts aforementioned, relaxation in favour of Sri M. Rajendra Prasad was granted in as much as he possessed M.Phil degree. This relaxation was based on a resolution by the Andhra University Syndicate. In Vasumathi Raje1, the Government itself realized its mistake in granting relaxation and tried to rectify it by canceling the earlier order of relaxation. The order passed by the Government, canceling the earlier order of cancellation, was held invalid by this Court on the ground of absence of power of review. Unlike in the case of Vasumathi Raje1, the petitioner has not been granted any such relaxation. Accepting the petitioner’s contention that she should also be given relaxation may well result in rendering the very prescription of obtaining 55% marks in post graduation, for appointment as a lecturer, itself being rendered redundant for every Lecturer, who had obtained less than 55% marks in his/her post graduation, could escape the rigor of the Government Order on this specious plea. It is well settled that in the absence of the person, whose case is sought to be compared for making out a case of discrimination, being arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition this Court should not, ordinarily, examine such a plea. It is only in cases where the orders issued in favour of the other person is in accordance with the rules/government orders, would the petitioner be entitled to seek parity. It is not even the petitioner’s case that the Government had subsequently passed orders relaxing the rigor of the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No. 396, dated 15.04.1982. Relaxation granted in favour of Vasumathi Raje1 was illegal and the petitioner cannot claim parity or seek a direction from this Court for being extended a similar benefit as no mandamus can be sought to perpetuate an illegality. (Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh2) Viewed from any angle, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:26.02.2010 usd [1] 1999(3) ALD 680 2 AIR 1995 SC 705