IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.406 of 2004 Between: B. Ramachandra Reddy, S/o Penchala Reddy, Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Legislative Affairs and Justice, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, (Services) General Administration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. K. Saradamba, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 4 K.G.G.S.B.R. Krishna Rao, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 5 V. Suneetha, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 6 T. Prabhakar Rao, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 7 Y. Vyasaraja, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 8 Smt. P. Susheela, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 9 Ch. Bhaskara Rao, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 10 M. Mannam Farooqui, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 11 J. Venkateswara Rao, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 12 S. Nagendra Prasad, s/o S.B. Krishna Murthy, Law Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. (RR 7 to 12 are now working as Assistant Section Officers) ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the G.O.Ms.No. 62, Law Department, dated 9-5-2003 and the consequential O.O.Ms.No.24, Law (M1) Department, dated 27-5-2003 withdrawing the exemption granted to the petitioner to pass Telugu Type Writing Higher Grade and cancelling the regularization in the cadre of Typist-cum-Assistant and also cancelling the declaration of probation besides G.O.Ms.No.57 Law Department, dated 11-4-2001 in so far as placing the petitioner below Respondents 7 to 11 in seniority of Typist -cum-Assistant as in G.O.Ms.No.57 Law Department dated 11-4-2001 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Rule 17 (6-A) (ii) of A.P. Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules 1965 and also Rule 35-A of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 and also Rule 15 (ii) of A.P. Ministerial Service Rules in so far as the seniority of the Petitioner is concerned and consequently set aside G.O.Ms.No. 62, Law Department, dated 9-5- 2003 and the consequential O.O.Ms.No. 24 Law (M1) Department, dated 27-5-2003 as confirmed by common Judgment in O.A.No. 3566 of 2003 and batch dated 20-11-2003 by giving seniority to the petitioner from 29-10-1987 in the cadre of Typist-cum-Assistant and above respondents 3 to 12 except Respondent No.5 and also attendant benefits Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.406 of 2004 ORAL ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 20-11-2003 made in O.A.No.3566 of 2003 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. The said O.A. filed to declare G.O.Ms.No.62, Law (M) Department, dated 9-5-2003 and the consequential Office Order Ms.No.24, dated 27-5-2003 issued by the 1st respondent withdrawing the exemption granted to the applicant-petitioner herein from passing Telugu Typewriting Higher Examination and cancelling the regularization of his services in the cadre of Typist-cum-Assistant and also cancelling the declaration of probation in the same category as arbitrary and illegal, was dismissed along with other O.As. by a common Order dated 20-11-2003. It is the case of the petitioner that he had passed English Typewriting Higher Grade and was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Unit of District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. While so, respondent No.1 addressed a letter dated 2-3-1987 to all the District Judges calling for applications from inservice candidates for appointment by transfer as Typist-cum-Assistants in the Law Department. Thereafter, he submitted his willingness and was appointed vide Office Order Ms.No.118, dated 29-10-1987. According to the petitioner, as on the date of calling for applications from candidates working in various Courts, the Rules existing were A.P. Secretariat Subordinate service Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.876, dated 18-5-1965 and as per sub-rule (6-A) of Rule 17 of the said Rules, for appointment to the post of Typist-cum-Assistant, one must be a Graduate and pass Typewriting Higher Grade either in English or Telugu. Further, he passed Typewriting Telugu Lower Grade on 2.4.1988. Subsequently, on abolition of Andhra Pradesh Law Academy, the 1st respondent posted him as Junior Assistant, by transfer on administrative grounds, to the Government Pleaders’ Office, High Court, which is under the control of Law Department, vide Office Order Ms.No.99, dated 11-7-1989. Thereafter, 1st respondent through his Office Order Ms.No.32, dated 9-6-1993 appointed him as Typist-cum- Assistant in an existing vacancy in the Law Department, but no condition was imposed for passing Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade. He was also extended special promotion scale with effect from 1-10- 1998 on completion of 16 years of service. While so, respondent No.1 had given exemption from passing Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination vide G.O.Ms.No.57, Law (M1) Department, dated 11-4- 2001 showing his date of regular appointment as 11-6-1993. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Section Officer vide G.O.Ms.No.2, Law, dated 16-1-2002 and eversince he has been working as such. While the things stood thus, respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated 6-11-2002 calling for explanation as to why the exemption granted to him should not be withdrawn and his services be regulated in the category of Typist-cum-Assistant from the date of acquiring the qualification, for which he submitted his explanation on 22-11-2002. Respondent No.1, without considering his explanation, had withdrawn the exemption granted to him from acquiring the Telugu Typewriting Higher grade qualification, vide G.O.Ms.No.62, Law, dated 9-5-2003. Challenging the same, he filed O.A.No.3566 of 2003 before the Tribunal contending that he had been extended special scale and was also given promotion taking his seniority from 19-10-1987 and the official respondents kept quiet for 15 long years and at no point of time, directed him to acquire the qualification of Typewriting Telugu Higher Grade. The O.A. was resisted by the official as well as unofficial respondents. Considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal, by an Order dated 20-11-2003 dismissed the O.A. holding that the Government, after examining the matter in detail, have taken a conscious decision and passed the impugned Orders since it has got the power to review or revise any orders passed by it and as such, the order withdrawing the exemption granted earlier is perfectly legal. Questioning the said Order, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as on the date of calling for applications from the candidates working in the District Courts for appointment to the post of Typist-cum-Assistant i.e. 2-3-1987, the Rules (existing then) stipulate that passing of either English or Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade is sufficient and as the petitioner passed Typewriting English Higher Grade by then, there is no necessity for him to pass the Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade and the relaxation given by G.O.Ms.No.57, dated 11-4-2001 is only a formal; as such, withdrawing of the said exemption is illegal. Even otherwise, the petitioner has passed the Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination in August,2006. Under those circumstances, the impugned Order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Learned Government Pleader appearing for official respondents vehemently contended that as on the date on which the petitioner was appointed i.e. 29-10-1987, the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution in G.O.Ms.No.401, General Administration (Services.B) Department, dated 25-8-1987, came into force (retrospectively with effect from 5-3-1987), according to which, passing of Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade is essential and such an essential qualification cannot be relaxed and, therefore, the 1st respondent has rightly withdrew the relaxation granted earlier, in the teeth of the said G.O.Ms.No.401. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decision of this Court in B.PANDURANGA RAO v. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE, VISAKHAPATNAM[1] whereunder it was held that the essential technical and academic qualifications prescribed in the service rules for holding higher post cannot be relaxed by the orders issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. Learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondents raised the same contentions as were raised by the learned Government Pleader and supported the impugned Order of the Tribunal. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Order and other material made available on record. During the course of hearing, it came to light that the cause title was not properly given. Petitioner has filed two O.As. i.e. O.A.Nos.3566 of 2003 and 8974 of 2001. The first one is filed questioning the cancellation of relaxation granted in his favour and the second one seeking seniority over his certain colleagues. Both the O.As were disposed of by a common Order dated 20-11-2003. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. When it was pointed out that a single Writ Petition could not have been filed against both the O.As., learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner restricted this Writ Petition to the Order in O.A.No.3566 of 2003, dated 20-11-2003. Thus, respondents 3 to 12 as mentioned in this Writ Petition could not have been made parties to this Writ Petition. Therefore, no order can be passed against them. It is treated that they were never impleaded as parties to this Writ Petition and the order passed in this Writ Petition will not bind them. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been appointed as Junior Assistant in the Unit of District Judge, Adilabad in the year 1987 and at that time, he had passed only Typewriting English Higher Grade. By letter dated 2-3-1987, the 1st respondent called for willingness of the candidates, who were working in various Courts, for appointment to the post of Typist-cum-Assistant in the Law Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh. As on the date when the letter was addressed by the 1st respondent, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.876, dated 18-5- 1965 were in operation and they govern the case of the petitioner. According to the said Rules, for appointment to the post of Typist-cum- Assistant (Category 6-A), by any method, the requisite qualifications were pass in Graduation and Government Technical Examination in Typewriting by the Higher Grade either in English or Telugu. The petitioner was appointed as Typist-cum-Assistant vide Office Order Ms.No.118, Law, dated 29-10-1987. By that time, the said Rules were amended by G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 25-8-1987 to the effect that Typist- cum-Assistant must possess Typewriting Higher Grade in Telugu and the Rules were given retrospective operation from 5-3-1987. However, it was stated in the Rules that if sufficient number of candidates with Telugu Typewriting qualification are not available for appointment, candidates with English Typewriting qualification may be appointed, subject to condition that he/she should acquire Telugu Typewriting qualification within a period of two years from the date of appointment. In the appointment order issued to the petitioner, there was no condition that he should acquire the qualification of Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade within two years of his appointment. As on 2-3-1987, when the requisition was sent by the 1st respondent, the old Rules were in operation. Therefore, in the Order dated 29-10-1987 appointing the petitioner as Typist-cum-Assistant, there is no condition imposed that he should acquire Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade. After his appointment, the petitioner was sent for training in Telugu Typewriting and he passed the Telugu Typewriting Lower Grade Examination on 2-4-1988. As such, the contention of the petitioner that had he been directed to acquire the qualification of Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade in all these years, he would have acquired the same, seems to be correct. It appears, the petitioner was appointed, by transfer, in the Law Department as Typist-cum-Assistant, in pursuance of the requisition dated 2-3-1987 and the application of the petitioner dated 23-3-1987, by an Order dated 29-10-1987. In the meanwhile, Rules were amended by G.O.Ms.No.401, dated 25-8-1987 with retrospective effect from 5-3-1987. It view of this, to regulate the procedure, the official respondents seem to have granted relaxation, after his transfer from the Government Pleaders’ Office to the Secretariat. The respondents have not noticed the fact that the amended law has retrospective effect, at the time of appointment of the petitioner. Be that as it may, under the above circumstances, the petitioner cannot be blamed for not having the qualification of Typewriting Telugu Higher grade or he can be blamed that he was not having requisite qualification, since he was never sounded in this regard. Further, it is nowhere stated that the work in the Secretariat/Government Pleaders’ Office suffered in view of not holding the Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade qualification during his tenure as Typist-cum-Assistant. Therefore, absolutely, there was no necessity for withdrawal of the relaxation granted stating that no relaxation can be granted as to the essential qualification. Petitioner has the qualifications of Typewriting English Higher Grade and Typewriting Telugu Lower Grade in the year 1988 itself. In the peculiar facts of this case and as in the appointment order issued to the petitioner there was no condition that he should pass Typewriting Telugu Higher Grade within a particular period (though such a condition was imposed in respect of others), the petitioner cannot be faulted. That apart, as stated by the petitioner, the relaxation given in his favour vide G.O.Ms.No.57, dated 11-4-2001 is a formal one and there was no necessity of issuing such an order. In fact, the petitioner had passed the Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade Examination in August,2006. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of withdrawing of exemption granted to the petitioner from acquiring the qualification of Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade cannot be said to be legal. The Tribunal has not gone into these aspects and it only held that the Government cannot relax the basic qualification and Government has power to review or revise any orders passed earlier. No doubt, the Government cannot relax the essential qualification. But, in this case, the service conditions of the petitioner were governed by the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.876, dated 18-5-1965 under which, the Typist-cum-Assistant must possess Graduation and Typewriting Higher Grade either in English or Telugu and by 2-3-1987, admittedly, he had passed the Typewriting English Examination and as such, he was eligible for appointment to the post of Typist-cum- Assistant and was rightly appointed by the 1st respondent without imposing the condition of passing the Telugu Typewriting Higher Grade examination. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned Government Pleader has no application to the facts of the present case. For all the above reasons, the impugned Order dated 20-11-2003 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.3566 of 2003 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside; accordingly, it is set aside. Consequently, the O.A. shall stand allowed and G.O.Ms.No.62, Law, dated 9-5-2003 and the consequent O.O.Ms.No.24, dated 27-5-2003 issued by the 1st respondent are set aside only insofar as the petitioner is concerned. However, this order will not bind respondents 3 to 12, as stated supra. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ (Ghulam Mohammed,J) 10th July, 2008 _____________ (C.V.Ramulu,J) prk [1] 2001(3) ALD 117