IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22486 of 2008 Between: Renuka Kumari Goud, D/o. Raghunath Goud, Hindu, Brahimin Street, Ichapuram, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The District Selection Committee 2006, Rep. by its Chairman-Cum-District Collector, Srikakulam. 3 The Secretary of DSC 2006-Cum-District, Educational Officer, Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any Writ, Order or direction particularly a Writ in the nature of CERTIORARI by calling for records and set aside the impugned order dt. 22-11- 2006 passed in O.A.No. 4214/2006 on the ﬁle of Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal with a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the vacant post of Secondary Grade Teacher (Oriya) kept for the petitioner under BC (Women) category in pursuant to the recruitment of DSC-2006 pass such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.M.PATRO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.22486 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the order dated 22-11-2006 passed in O.A.No.4214 of 2006 on the ﬁle of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and further seeking a direction to the oﬃcial respondents to appoint the petitioner in the vacant post of Secondary Grade Teacher (Oriya) under BC (woman) category in pursuance of DSC-2006 notiﬁcation issued by the Director of School Education. 2. The details relevant for deciding the writ petition may be stated thus: The petitioner had ﬁled O.A. seeking direction to the respondents to consider her case by receiving the application for the post of Teacher notiﬁed in DSC-2006, without reference to the declaration of B.Ed. result. The Tribunal after considering rival contentions, held that the petitioner was not having requisite qualiﬁcation as on the date of submission of application and therefore dismissed O.A. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had appeared for B.Ed. examination in April, 2006, but the result was not declared as on the last date mentioned in the DSC-2006 notiﬁcation and the written examination was held on 29th, 30th and 31st August, 2006. He also contended that the petitioner had submitted the application by virtue of interim order of the Tribunal and subsequently, she was declared as passed on 29-08-2006 before the completion of written examination. 5. Learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioner does not have the basic qualiﬁcation prescribed as on the date of DSC-2006 notiﬁcation and as such, she is not eligible to write the exam or seek appointment. 6. We have considered the rival contentions of both the counsel. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess B.Ed. qualiﬁcation as on the date of submission of application pursuant to DSC-2006 notiﬁcation, though she may have written B.Ed. examination and awaiting the result. It is settled law that a candidate must possess the qualiﬁcation prescribed as on the date of notiﬁcation or submission of application and acquiring the qualiﬁcation subsequently even before the selection process is over will not inure to the beneﬁt of such candidate. Acquiring of qualiﬁcation subsequently would not confer any right of eligibility, as rightly observed by the Tribunal. It appears the petitioner had submitted the application pursuant to interim order passed by the Tribunal, but that by itself will not give her the right to be considered for appointment. In fact, the petitioner had not enclosed the certificate in proof of prescribed qualification, along with the application, which ought not to have been considered. In the circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity, legal or otherwise, in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. 24-09-2008 bsc