THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No. 28754 of 2011 Between: Iqbal Mohammed and others ……….Petitioners and The High Court of Andhra Pradesh and others ……….Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No. 28754 of 2011 ORDER: (Per: Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) The petitioners are commonly aggrieved by the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 14-09-2011 calling upon the respondents 2 to 7 (within whose units, the petitioners are working as Administrative Officers) to review the selection process leading to appointment of the petitioners herein to the said category in the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service and to revert them after following the due process of law, since the petitioners do not fulfill the requisite qualification specified under the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, 2003 (for brevity ‘2003 Rules’) and are thus disqualified for holding the post of Administrative Officers. 2. An earlier letter of the High Court dated 13-09-2011 is cited as reference for issuance of the impugned proceedings. In a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8412 of 2011, challenging the selection of two persons as Administrative Officers who did not have a degree qualification, this Court while allowing the said writ petition observed that Note-2 to Annexure-I of the 2003 Rules does not disapply the requirement of graduation qualification for appointment as Administrative Officer, if the appointment is to be made after coming into force of the 2003 Rules. Following the judgment in W.P.No.8412 of 2011 and the earlier letter of the High Court dated 13-09-2011, the impugned proceedings were issued. 3. On the admitted factual scenario, the petitioners joined service in the different Judicial District Units under the administrative control of respondents 2 to 7 and were eventually promoted to the post of Superintendent in accordance with the earlier 1964 Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, issued in G.O.Ms.No.206, dated 17-02- 1964, issued by the Governor in exercise of the powers under proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. There was no post of Administrative Officers in the Constitution of the service, under the 1964 Rules. 4. The 2003 Rules were issued in supersession and repeal of the 1964 Rules. In these Rules, the post of Administrative Officer is enumerated as category-I. Rule 6 of these Rules enumerates the method of appointment and the appointing authorities and for the post of Administrative Officers that the method of appointment shall be by promotion from the category of Superintendents. The District Judge is specified as the appointing authority. Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules enjoins that no person shall be eligible for appointment to the categories specified in Column (1) to Annexure-I of these Rules by the method specified in Column (2), unless such person possesses the qualifications specified in the corresponding entry in Column (3) thereof. 5. Annexure-I which is an annotation of the provisions of Rule 8 and spells out the categories of posts to which appointment is to be made; the method of appointment thereto; the qualifications for such appointment. The Annexure specifies, in serial No.1 that for the category of Administrative Officer, the method of appointment is by promotion from Category 2 (Superintendent) and that the qualification for such promotion is graduation. 6. Note 2, following the annexure-I, reads as under: “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.” 7. Rule 39 of the 2003 Rules, which is a Repeal and Savings provision, also enacts that nothing in the 2003 Rules shall effect appointments made in accordance with the repealed Rules, 1964 (for brevity ‘1964 Rules’), prior to coming into force of the 2003 Rules. 8. On a synoptic reading and interpretation of the provisions of Rule 39 read with Note-2 appended to Annexure-I and with the mandate of Rule 8, it is clear that only appointments made prior to coming into force of the 2003 Rules are saved if those appointments are in contravention with the provisions of the 2003 Rules. Thus, a person appointed as an Administrative Officer prior to the enforcement of the 2003 Rules i.e. prior to 05-12-2003, shall not be required to possess a graduate qualification nor shall be liable to be removed or reverted from the post of Administrative Officer on account of not having a graduate qualification. 9. On a true and fair construction of the provisions of Rule 39 read with the phraseology of Note-2 of Annexure-I to the 2003 Rules, it is clear beyond a scintilla of doubt that a person, appointed after coming into force of the 2003 Rules, will have to possess the qualifications enjoined by these Rules. 10. Admittedly, all the petitioners were appointed as Administrative Officers much subsequent to the coming into force of the 2003 Rules and without having a graduate qualification. Hence, their appointment as Administrative Officer is in clear transgression of the non-derogable mandate of the 2003 Rules and cannot be sustained. The impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent instructing the Unit heads to revert the petitioners from the post of Administrative Officer to which they are appointed in violation of the 2003 Rules, after following the due process is thus in conformity with the statutory position. 11. In the circumstances, this Court discerns no infirmity in the order impugned, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is without any merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM _________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 27-10-2011 kvr