HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR W.P.No. 19083 OF 2009 Date: 10.09.2009 Between: Smt. K. Tirumala Kumari ………. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad & others …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR W.P.No. 19083 OF 2009 O R D E R: (Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzul Purkar) This Writ Petition questions the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.Nos. 430 of 2007 and batch, dated 10.09.2007. The present Writ Petition is directed against O.A.No. 3 of 2007 which was one of the cases in the aforesaid batch. The issue involved before the Tribunal was with respect to the part-time junior lecturers, who have been found irregularly selected and irregularly sanctioned minimum time scale. So far as the petitioner is concerned, she was appointed as part-time Junior Lecturer in Computer Science with effect from 14th July 2000 at K.A.C. Government College, Nellore. She was drawing remuneration from the Government funds with effect from 13.07.2000. Admittedly, she possessed a degree in M.A. (Economics) (1998) and PGDCA (1992). On verification of the reports and particulars furnished by the Principal of the College to the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, the 2nd respondent, it was noticed that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualifications and she has been engaged directly. Accordingly, by proceedings of the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, in R.C.No. Voc1-3/118/44/2005, dated 23.02.2006, she was given a show cause notice on the ground that the Government has prohibited irregular appointments with effect from 25.11.1993, after promulgating Act No. 2 of 1994 and the system of part- time appointment is not in existence after 25.11.1993 as per the aforesaid Act. She was also informed that on verification of her qualifications, it was found that she is not holding the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Lecturer in Computer Science as per Rules. The appointment being irregular, she is not eligible to continue as part-time Junior Lecturer. The petitioner replied to this show cause on 23.07.2006, specifically mentioning that she possessed M.A. Economics (1998) from S.V. University and APGDCA- Profound Group of Institute in the year 1992 . The qualifications prescribed for the post of Junior Lecturer in Computer Science was laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 101, Higher Education (IE.I) Department, dated 29.07.2006. Clause 6 thereof reads as follows: “ That persons having MCA/MSc. (Computer Science/M.Sc., (IT)/PG with PGDCA from recognized University shall be considered equivalent to B.Tech qualification in Computer Science and shall be continued in their present status.” While considering the aforesaid explanation, the Commissioner of Intermediate Education found that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification, inasmuch as she is holding degree of M.A.(Economics), whereas the requirement as per the G.O.Ms.No. 101 referred to above is that the candidate must possess MCA or M.Sc. (Computer Science) or M.Sc.(IT), etcetera with PGDCA from a recognized university. It is, therefore, clear that only such of the basic educational degree with Post Graduation from a recognized university is treated as equivalent to B.Tech in Computer Science. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have the basic Post Graduate degree relatable to Computer Science and regarding the PGDCA obtained by her is from the Profound Institute and there is no material to show that the same is from a recognized university. The Commissioner, therefore, rightly found that the petitioner does not have the requisite qualification to hold the said post and that she has not been engaged and has drawn remuneration prior to 25.11.1983 and her engagement being only from 13.07.2000, she is not entitled to be continued in the said post of part-time Lecturer. Consequently, the impugned proceedings dated. 29.11.2006 were issued dispensing with the services of the petitioner. The said order was questioned in the O.A. referred to above before the Tribunal, which has rightly considered the material and found that the petitioner is not satisfying the conditions of minimum service of five years as on 25.11.1993 and even in the light of G.O.Ms.No 101, she does not satisfy the necessary requirement and in that view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner who has reiterated the submissions, but keeping in view the situation as is apparent from the record referred to above, we do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, as it does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or any illegality. The Writ Petition is, therefore, misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ------------------------- (V. ESWARAIAH, J) ----------------------------------- (VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR,J) 10th September 2009 ksld