THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.8412 of 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This writ is filed by a Superintendent employed in the Judicial Unit of Adilabad District, assailing in substance, appointment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as Administrative Officers superceding his claim for such appointment. The petitioner initially entered service as a Typist in 1983; was converted as L.D.C. in 1995; was promoted as U.D.C. on 12.05.2000 and finally as a Superintendent on 16.05.2005 and has been working as such since then. B.Madanmohan and S.Bhasker, who are seniors to the petitioner as Superintendents, were considered and appointed as Administrative Officers, the next higher post in the hierarchy of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service, in 2008. Bhasker was scheduled to retire on superannuation on 31.03.2011. The first respondent – the Unit Head of Adilabad District Judicial Unit conducted interviews on 10.03.2011 by issuing notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4 for such an interview. The petitioner is aggrieved that he being a Superintendent and eligible to be considered for the post of Administrative Officer, was not called for the interview scheduled on 10.03.2011. The petitioner also asserts that neither of respondent Nos.2 to 4 are eligible for appointment as Administrative Officers since they are not graduates which is the mandatory qualification for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer under the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 (for short ‘2003 Rules’). The petitioner also contends that the first respondent violated Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules while calling the candidates for interview for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer – Category I post, while ignoring his own claim for such consideration despite his post graduation i.e., M.Com. It is also asserted that the procedure specified in G.O.Ms.No.50 (Law & J, Home Courts-D) Department dated 23.04.2009 was violated in the recruitment, which ordained to be by a committee and not by the first respondent alone. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit, which to the extent relevant to the material admits that as regards the qualification as per Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, graduation is compulsory for promotion as Administrative Officer. Earlier in 2008, since there were two vacancies of Administrative Officers, notices were issued to six persons working as Superintendents including the petitioner in the order of seniority and seniors to the petitioner in the category of Superintendent were appointed as Administrative Officers; an aspect on which the petitioner has no grievance. The counter proceeds to state that since there were only one vacancy of Administrative Officer now available to be filled up by way of promotion, in view of the retirement of Sri Bhasker on 31.03.2011, three persons were issued notices to attend the interview i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner being junior was not issued notice. With regard to the assertion of the petitioner that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not qualified for being appointed as Administrative Officers (for not possessing graduation qualification), the counter states that as per Circular instructions of the High Court dated 03.03.2011, respondent Nos.2 to 4 alone were considered from the post of Superintendents. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of this Court in W.P.Nos.11450 of 2005, 470 of 2009, 4067 of 2009 and 5072 of 2009, on the basis of which the High Court issued Circular instructions dated 12.08.2009 directing all the Unit Heads to scrupulously follow the directions of the High Court in the above writ petitions while making promotion to the category of Administrative Officers as well. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent states that the High Court in Circular in ROC No.725/2009-C.1 dated 12.08.2009 had directed that the judgments referred to above should be scrupulously followed while making promotions to the category of Administrative Officers. In the context of the aforestated pleadings, the judgment of the Division Bench dated 19.03.2009 in W.P.No.5072 of 2009 requires to be noticed. This was a case involving the claim of a Senior Assistant - Category III for promotion to the post of Superintendent as per the 2003 Rules. His claim was not considered on the ground that he possessed only S.S.C. qualification and did not have intermediate qualification, the requisite qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Assistant under the 2003 Rules. The petitioner therein was appointed as Junior Assistant in a substantive capacity prior to the coming into force of the 2003 Rules; and during the currency of the earlier Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Services Rules, 1964. Therefore, this Court, interpreting Note 2 to the Annexure II to the 2003 Rules, held that since intermediate is not a qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant or Superintendent under the 2003 Rules but is the qualification stipulated for the post of Junior Assistant and since the note immunizes a person appointed to a post in accordance with the earlier Rules from having to acquire the higher qualification prescribed for that post under the 2003 Rules, the petitioner was eligible to be considered for appointment as Superintendent. There is nothing in the judgment dated 19.03.2009 in W.P.No.5072 of 2009; or in Note 2 to the Annexure II to the 2003 Rules, which renders eligible a person, who does not have a graduation, qualified for appointment to the post of Administrative Officer, after coming into force of the 2003 Rules. None of the judgments state so nor do the Circular instructions enjoin so. The first respondent appears to have misconceived the legal position in failing to call the petitioner, the senior most Superintendent eligible and qualified, while calling respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are not qualified (for not having a graduate qualification) for interview. The first respondent also committed an error in appointing respondent Nos.2 and 3 as Administrative Officers. For the aforesaid reasons, the appointment of respondent Nos.2 and 3 as Administrative Officers is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The first respondent is directed to conduct interviews de novo, in accordance with the established procedure after issuing a notice to the petitioner as well as other qualified persons in accordance with the 2003 Rules; consider their cases and issue orders of appointment afresh, expeditiously. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J ________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 11th July, 2011 GHN