THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.12376 OF 2005 18.11.2011 BETWEEN: T.Suryaprakash ... Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Employment Training Department, B.R.K.Bhavan, Hyderabad, And others. ... Respondents THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.12376 OF 2005 ORDER: (Per Honble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Training Officer (Engineering Drawing) (hereafter, ATO) in the Department of Employment and Training, Government of Andhra Pradesh, by proceedings, dated 29.09.2003 of the first respondent. This was preceded by a selection process which included written test and interview pursuant to a notification issued by the second respondent on 06.03.2003. The appointment was challenged by the fourth respondent by filing original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1995 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (the Tribunal, for brevity). The said application being O.A.No.817 of 2004 was disposed of by the Tribunal setting aside the appointment and directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider his case for appointment as ATO, if there is no other person with hearing impairment in the selection list. The order of the Tribunal is challenged in this writ petition. The case of the fourth respondent before the Tribunal is that he is a physically challenged person; he is a diploma holder in mechanical engineering; he applied pursuant to notification dated 06.03.2003 calling for applications for recruitment to the post of ATOs; he stood first in the written test and interview and that he ought to have been appointed to the post of ATO. He contended that as per Andhra Pradesh Craftsmen Training Subordinate Service Rules, 1995 (Special Rules, for brevity), he is fully qualified and that the petitioner herein does not possess the essential educational qualification. The first respondent admitted before the Tribunal that the fourth respondent stood at No.1 in the selection list. While denying the allegation that the petitioner is not qualified for the post of ATO, it was alleged that the petitioner obtained technical training certificate in mechanical engineering from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers (India) (IME, for brevity), which is recognized by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education as equivalent to the Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and therefore, he was appointed against roster point No.6. It is earmarked for visually challenged, and then for persons with hearing impairment/ orthopaedically handicapped, if visually handicapped persons are not available. It was also submitted in the counter affidavit that a committee was constituted by the Government vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.115, dated 30.07.199 with powers to interchange the categories of physically challenged persons from one category to another category as 3% reservation is provided in the ratio of 1:1:1 for visually challenged, hearing impaired and orthopaedically challenged. As visually challenged person was not available, the matter was placed before the committee, which gave permission for the proposal of the Director to interchange the post of ATO in all the zones from the visually challenged to hearing impaired or orthopaedically challenged. The petitioner herein did not file any counter affidavit before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered two questions as to (i) whether Part I and Part II technical training certificate issued by the IME possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to Diploma issued by the State Board of Technical Education and Training (State Board, for brevity) and is in accordance with the Statutory Rules and (ii) whether the appointment of the petitioner being a physically challenged (hearing) person in preference to orthopaedically challenged person is valid? On the first question, having regard to the recruitment notification wherein it was mentioned that the post of ATO at No.6 in the roster can be given to hearing/orthopaedically handicapped person if visually challenged person is not available and also having regard to the decision of the committee to give preference to hearing impaired person the Tribunal held in favour of the petitioner. On the second question, however, it was held that the candidates with Diploma in Engineering/Technology or its equivalent issued by the State Board are only eligible for being considered for the post of ATO and that technical training certificate of IME is not equivalent to the prescribed qualification as per Annexure to Rule 6 of the Special Rules. Accordingly, while setting aside the appointment of the petitioner the Tribunal directed the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the claim of the fourth respondent if no other candidate with hearing impairment is available. In this writ petition, the counsel for petitioner submits that the Certificate Course of Mechanical Engineers of IME is recognized by the Government of India vide notification dated 24.10.1981 as equivalent to Diploma in Mechanical Engineering granted by the State Board and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. He would urge that the Diploma acquired by the petitioner fully satisfies the qualifications prescribed by the Special Rules. According to him, Diploma in Engineering or Technology or equivalent issued by the State Board must be construed as including any such certificate. The counsel for the fourth respondent submits that as per the special Rules and the recruitment notification dated 06.03.2003 only persons with diploma in Engineering and Technology or its equivalent issued by the State Board are eligible. The writ petitioner does not possess the said qualification, and therefore, his appointment ignoring qualified and suitable candidate is illegal and unsustainable. He would urge that the Government of India notification dated 11.07.1988 does not equate the qualification possessed by the petitioner and that certificate from the IME which was declared as not equivalent by the State Board can not be equated with prescribed qualifications. There is no dispute that as per Rule 6 read with relevant part in the Annexure to be eligible for appointment to the post of ATO (Engineering and Drawing), a person must possess the Diploma in Engineering or Technology issued by the State Board. Any diploma which is equivalent to it issued by the State Board is also one of the qualifications. As per Rule 6(b), the Commissioner/Director of Employment and Training is empowered to notify from time to time the specific branch of degree in Engineering/Diploma in Engineering, which is relevant for appointment of ATO in relation to the concerned trade or branch in industrial training institute courses. Indisputably the petitioner does not possess the Diploma in Engineering/Technology issued by the State Board. He passed the certificate course in mechanical engineering conducted by IME. The Secretary of the State Board addressed a letter dated 03.01.2000 to the Director of Employment and Training informing that expert committee constituted by the State Board for the purpose of examining the equivalency of qualifications decided that Part I and Part II of Technical Engineering Examination Certificate of IME cannot be considered as equivalent to Diploma in Engineering offered by the State Board. In view of this, there cannot be any iota of doubt that the petitioner does not fulfil the qualifications as prescribed by Rule 6 read with Annexure to the Special Rules and the recruitment notification. The petitioner, however, contends that in view of the instructions issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.386, dated 25.10.1994 and notification dated 11.07.1998 issued by the Government of India, all the qualifications which are recognized by the Government of India are automatically recognized by the Andhra Pradesh Government for employment purpose. He, therefore, would submit that when the Secretary of State Board in his letter dated 03.01.2000 admitted this position, the qualification acquired by the petitioner IME is equivalent to the Diploma offered by the State Board. This was considered by the Tribunal and it was held against the petitioner. The relevant observations are as follows. In this regard, it is pointed out that Rule 6(b) of Statutory Rule, governing the post, stipulates that the Commissioner/Director of Employment and Training shall notify from time to time, the specific branch of Degree Engineering/Diploma in Engineering/Technology or National Apprenticeship Certificate/National Trade Certificate in the relevant Technology or trade, which is relevant for appointment of a candidate as Deputy Training Officer or Assistant Training Officer or Technical Assistant as the case may be in relation to the concerned trade or branch in Industrial Training Institute courses. From the perusal of the above provision in the statutory rules, the Commissioner/Director of Employment and Training is required to notify such of the Degree Engineering/Diploma in Engineering/Technology or National Apprenticeship Certificate etc which is relevant for appointment of a candidate as Deputy Training Officer or Assistant Training Officer or Technical Assistant as the case may be. Nothing has been placed on record to show that such a notification was issued by the Commissioner/Director of Employment and Training. It is not the case of the respondents that the unofficial respondent is having qualification as has been prescribed in the annexure to Rule 6 of statutory rules. Therefore, in the absence of any such notification, mere letter from the Secretary, State Board of Technical Education and Training to the Director of Employment and Training informing that all qualifications which are recognized by the Government of India are automatically recognized by the A.P.Government for employment purposes, cannot be accepted as the statutory rule does not say that any qualification recognized by Government of India is equivalent to the qualification which is prescribed in the statutory rules. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is very sound. When the Special Rules require a notification, mere orders of the State Government or Central Government do not have the effect of supplementing the Statutory Rules. It is settled law that the effect of Statutory Rules cannot be whittled down by executive instructions. The Tribunal, therefore, has arrived at the conclusion in accordance with the law and this Court is not able to countenance the submission made by the petitioner. No notification is placed before this Court recognizing the certificate course offered by IME as equivalent to Diploma in Engineering offered by the State Board. When there is a qualified candidate available, selecting a candidate who does not possess the minimum essential educational qualifications is certainly violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the appointment of the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 18.11.2011 Pln