IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 5072 of 2009 BETWEEN: E. Narahari, S/o. Late E. Veeraiah, O/o. VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medcharla, Ranga Reddy District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The High Court of A.P. Rep by its Registrar Administration, 2 The District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring a) the proceedings of the respondent No. 2 in order Dis.No.1549/2009, dated 2-3-2009 in unjustified and illegal b) Non Consideration of the claim of the petition for promotion as Superintendent while considering the case of the others who are juniors to the petitioner is in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the constitution of India, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Petitioner, a Senior Assistant in the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the order of the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District dated 02.03.2009 vide order D.Dis.No.1549/2009 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent (Category 3) on the ground that the academic qualification of the petitioner is SSC and in view of the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in ROC.No.285 & 1696/2004-C1(1) dated 10.03.2005, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Services Rules, 2003 (for short ‘Rules 2003’) issued in G.O.Ms.No.129 Law (L.A. & J-Home – Courts-D) Department dated 12.11.2003. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he joined the service as a Bailiff in the unit of Ranga Reddy District on 26.02.1982 and promoted as Junior Assistant in the month of June 1984 and further promoted as UDC on 12.09.1996. His probation was also declared and he is an approved probationer. It is stated that he passed all the Departmental tests including Civil Judicial Test Part - I & II; Accounts test for Subordinate Officer Part – I; Translation test and that he is presently working as Senior Assistant in the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. His academic qualification is only SSC but he has passed all the departmental tests and he is fully eligible and qualified for the next promotion to the post of Superintendent. It is stated that though he is the senior most among the Senior Assistants, his case was not considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent while considering the cases of Ch. Atchyutharamaraju, M. Narasimhababau and K. Dinakar, who are juniors to him. Therefore, he has filed a representation before the District Judge but the said representation has been rejected by order dated 02.03.2009 on the ground that he is having academic qualification of SSC alone and for promotion to the post of Superintendent, the qualification of Intermediate is required. It is stated that the posts in City Civil Court and the Court of District & Sessions Judges were governed by the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rule, 1964 (for short ‘Rules 1964’) issued in G.O.Ms.No.206 dated 07.02.1964. The educational qualification required for all the posts in Division –IV was minimum general educational qualifications i.e. SSC or SSLC as the case may be. 3. Under Rule 20 of Rules 1964 the minimum general educational qualifications are prescribed and the words ‘minimum general educational qualification’ are defined under Rule 2(m) as follows: “Minimum general educational qualification” means the qualification prescribed in the scheduled to General Rules for the time being in force. Under Schedule II of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Rules, 1996 a candidate is said possess the Minimum General Educational Qualification if he has passed one of the following examinations: - (1) Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hdyerabad. (2) …. to (31) … 4. At the time of appointment of petitioner either as Bailiff or as Senior Assistant, the minimum general educational qualification required was only SSC. The Rules 1964 issued under G.O.Ms.No.206 dated 07.02.1964 are superceded by the Rules 2003 issued under G.O.Ms.No.129 dated 12.11.2003. The post of Senior Assistant (UDC) is shown under Category 3 and the post of Superintendent under Category 2 of Rule 5 of the Rules 2003. The post of Superintendent will be filled by promotion from the post of Senior Assistants (Category 3); Junior Assistants (Category 4); Personal Assistants (Category 5) and Typists (Category 6) from the combined seniority lists. Under Rule 6 the method of appointment of Superintendents is by promotion of Senior Assistants (Category 3). Rule 8 prescribes the qualification for appointment to various categories specified in the annexure. Under Annexure to Rule 8 the post of Superintendent is to be filled up by promotion and the required qualification is as follows: Must have passed Translation Test i.e., (i) Translation from English to Regional Language and (ii) Translation from Regional Language to English. Similarly various qualifications are prescribed for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, Junior Assistant, Personal Assistant, Typist, Examiner, Copyist and Field Assistant. Note: 1 and Note: 2 of the Annexure are extracted as under: Note: 1: - A person who has appeared for the test on the date of occurrence of the vacancy in the higher post and passed the same subsequent thereto shall be treated as qualified on the date following the date of completion of the test or tests, if as on that date there is a vacancy in higher category remaining unfilled for want of a test qualified candidate. Note: 2: - A person appointed to a post in accordance with the rules applicable to him at the time of his appointment shall not be required to acquire higher qualifications prescribed for that post subsequent to his appointment. As perused from Note 2 it is clear that a person who is appointed to a post in accordance with the rules applicable to him at the time of appointment shall not be required to acquire higher qualifications prescribed to that post subsequent to his appointment. Therefore, to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent, the qualification of Intermediate is not required. 5. This Court while considering the case of employees, who were working as Junior Assistants, disposed of WP.No.4067 of 2009 on 02.03.2009 considering the earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court in WP.No.11450 of 2005 dated 17.10.2008 at Paras 6 and 7, which are extracted as under: “6. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, brought to our notice about the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11450 of 2005, dated 17-10-2008, in the case of certain employees of the judicial department, who were working as a Junior Assistants, seeking promotion to the Senior Assistants. With similar grounds as raised by the petitioner, a Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the said writ petition holding that the Junior Assistants, appointed under the erstwhile Rules, 1964, are not required to acquire higher qualification of passing intermediate, which is the prescribed qualification for appointment of the Junior Assistant by the replaced Rules, 1964, vide G.O.Ms.No.129, Law (L.A. & J- Home-Courts-D), dated 12-11-2003. Following the aforesaid judgment, this Court also disposed of W.P.No.470 of 2009, dated 20- 01-2009, which relates to the case of promotion from Senior Assistant to Office Superintendent. 7. We are of the opinion that the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.11450 of 2005, squarely applies to this case also, and it is just and proper for the 2nd respondent-Registrar (Administration), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to communicate the said judgment, delivered in W.P.No.11450 of 2005, dated 17-10-2008, to all the Unit Heads so that each employee need not approach this Court under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 6. This Court in WP.No.470 of 2009 dated 20.01.2009 considered the case of Senior Assistant for promotion to the post of Superintendent and allowed the said writ petition while setting aside the impugned order directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Superintendent without insisting upon possessing intermediate qualification, if he is otherwise eligible and qualified by passing departmental tests. 7. Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned standing counsel for the High Court, submits that the case of the petitioner is rejected pursuant to the orders of the High Court dated 10.03.2005 issued in ROC.No.285 & 1696/2004-C.I(1) on the ground that higher qualification for future promotion subsequent to the implementation of revised Rules 2003 cannot be exempted. 8. We have perused the said order. We are of the opinion that there was no any requirement of exemption of higher qualification in respect of the candidates who have been appointed under Rules 1964 for their promotion under Rules 2003, if they have possessed required qualification as per Rules 1964. Under Rules 1964 holding of SSC qualification alone is required whereas under Rules 2003 pass in departmental tests is additionally required for promotion. Therefore, the order of the High Court is quite contrary to the Rules and the aforesaid judgments of this Court. 9. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, is justified and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. However, as mentioned in Para 2 above three other Senior Assistants were already promoted as Superintendents and they are not impleaded as parties in this writ petition. Thus, following the ratio in WP.No.11450 of 2005 dated 17.10.2008, in that respect, the consideration of petitioner’s case for promotion, however, shall not affect the seniority of the already promoted Senior Assistants as above. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. We direct the first respondent to issue fresh circular and communicate the same to the unit heads to consider the cases of eligible candidates for promotion to various categories in accordance with the aforesaid judgments of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 19, 2009 DSK