IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.25932 of 2009 Date: 04.10.2010 Between: A.Venkataiah …..Petitioner And: The Honourable High Court of A.P. Rep. By its Registrar Administration and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.25932 of 2009 ORDER :(PER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM) Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.M.Bhaskar Lakshmi Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh High Court. Implementation of the circular dated 01.05.2009 issued by this Court on the administrative side; a declaration that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 15.05.2009 rejecting the petitioner’s representation for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer is arbitrary; a declaration that the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Memo dated 02.09.2009 intimating that there is no vacancy for the post of Administrative Officer to accommodate the petitioner for appointment to the said post is invalid; a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as an Administrative Officer in terms of orders passed in W.P.No.11450 of 2005 dated 17.10.2008, W.P.No.470 of 2009, dated 20.01.2009, and W.P.No.4067 of 2009, dated 02.03.2009 and in terms of orders dated 19.03.2009 in W.P.No.5072 of 2009; and a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as an Administrative Officer from the date of promotion of his juniors Sri K.Neelachalam, Sri Mediswamy are the raft of reliefs sought in this writ petition. The brief chronology of relevant facts: The petitioner after initially entering into service in the unit of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, as Bailiff in October, 1975 was promoted to various posts thereafter and eventually to the post of Superintendent with effect from 23.03.2004. He claims eligibility to promotion as an Administrative Officer with effect from 19.05.2006, the date on which a vacancy in the category of Administrative Officer arose. In substitution of the A.P.Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964, issued in G.O.Ms.No.206, Home (Courts-A) Department, dated 17.02.1964, the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003(in short, ‘2003 Rules’) were issued in G.O.Ms.No.129, Law (L.A. & J-Home-Courts-D) dated 12.11.2003. The post of Administrative Officer is enumerated in Rule 5 of the 2003 Rules setting out the constitution of the service, as a post in Category 1. Rule 6 of the 2003 Rules sets out the method of appointment and specifies the appointing authorities for the several categories of posts enumerated in the constitution of the service. Rule 8 of these rules enjoins that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the categories set out in Column (1) of Annexure-1 to these rules, by the method specified in Column (2) thereof unless such person possesses the qualifications specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof. For the post of Administrative Officer in category 1 of the service, Annexure-I to the 2003 Rules specifies that promotion shall be from category 2 (Superintendents) and the eligibility for such promotion is specified to be that candidate must be a graduate, in column 3. The petitioner places reliance in Note (2) of the Note appended to Annexure I which reads: “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 the post subsequent to his appointment” Admittedly, the 2003 Rules are applicable and relevant to consideration of the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of an Administrative Officer since his entitlement to such promotion arose after coming into force of the 2003 Rules. As already noticed, possession of graduation is a sine-qua-non for eligibility to be considered for promotion of a Superintendent, to the post of Administrative Officer. Sri Surender Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Note 2 appended to the Annexure I of the 2003 Rules to contend that since he was appointed and was working as Superintendent prior to the coming into force of the 2003 Rules, he is not required to possess a graduate qualification which qualification was prescribed for the first time under the 2003 Rules. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner does not commend acceptance by this Court. Note 2, on a true and fair construction of its phraseology only immunises the incumbent of a post appointed as such in accordance with the rules applicable to him at the time of his appointment from the requirement to acquire higher qualifications prescribed for that post subsequent to that appointment. Therefore, if a person is appointed as an Administrative Officer without a graduation, having been qualified for such appointment under the A.P.Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 1964, Note 2 enjoins that even though a graduate qualification is prescribed for appointment by promotion as Administrative Officer under the 2003 Rules, a candidate appointed as an Administrative Officer earlier thereto need not possess a graduation qualification. There is no provision in the 2003 Rules which expressly or by any compelling implication liberates or immunises the petitioner from the requirement of a graduate qualification if he is being considered for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer after coming into force of the 2003 Rules. The ratio of the judgment of a learned Division Bench of this Court dated 17.10.2008 in W.P.No.11450 of 2005 is categorical on this interpretation and this enunciation of principle governs the case of the petitioner as well and warrants rejection of the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 04, 2010 KSH