THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.22665 OF 2011 Dated:26.08.2011 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Petitioners And B.Bharath Kumar .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.22665 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The father of the respondent, while working as Senior Assistant in the establishment of the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, died. The respondent then applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. By proceedings dated 10.08.2002 the Regional Joint Director (RJD) appointed the respondent as Junior Assistant in the Government Junior College, Kothapeta, East Godavari District, subject to condition that he should improve his qualification by passing Intermediate Course. As per relevant policy of compassionate appointment, an unqualified candidate appointed is required to acquire the minimum qualifications within a period of three years. The appointee could not do so. The District Educational Officer (DEO) by proceedings dated 12.10.2008 directed the respondent to submit his willingness to be appointed in the Last Grade Service. By that time, he had passed Intermediate Course. Thereafter, he sought time for submitting his explanation, but in vain. He then approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by filing O.A.No.8926 of 2008. By order dated 29.12.2010, the learned Tribunal allowed the said O.A. and directed the RJD and DEO to continue the applicant as Junior Assistant with all benefits. Aggrieved by which, the Government filed the instant writ petition. The only submission made by the Government Pleader for Services - I is that when a person appointed on compassionate grounds, fails to acquire the minimum qualifications within the period of three years, it is always open to the competent authority to offer him the post in the Last Grade Service. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. The learned Tribunal followed the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.831 of 2002 dated 29.01.2004 (B.Rajakaruna Kumar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Treasuries and Accounts Department, Hyderabad) wherein the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Accountant in the Department of Treasuries and Accounts on condition that he should obtain the qualifications of higher typewriting within two years. He could not pass the same within time and, therefore, he was discharged from service on 04.01.2002. He then filed O.A.No.329 of 2002 which was disposed of directing the candidate to approach the Government for Relaxation of Rules. During the pendency of the proceedings, the candidate acquired necessary qualifications. Giving due weight to this, this Court allowed the W.P.No.831 of 2002 observing as under. It is also to be noted that as the recruitment could be conducted in accordance with the relevant statutory rules and the statutory rules contemplates that one should possess the qualification of Higher Grade in Typewriting, such a condition was imposed in the appointment order. Admittedly in this case the petitioner did not possess the Higher Grade Typewriting qualification though two years time was granted to him. But it is now brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has passed the Higher Grade Typewriting in February, 2003. Inasmuch as the notification was silent though the Rules were specific on this aspect and the fact that the petitioner now passed the Higher Grade Typewriting thereby conforming to the requirement of the condition of appointment, though belatedly, we find that it is not a case for discharging the petitioner from service for not acquiring the qualification. The lapses are equal both on the part of the Government as well as on the petitioner. Under these circumstances, as the petitioner has already acquired the specified qualification, we find discharge of the petitioner from service by an order dated 04.01.2002 is unwarranted and accordingly the same is set aside. The learned Tribunal followed the above judgment of this Court and rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent herein should be allowed to continue as Junior Assistant. There is no dispute that the respondent did not acquire Intermediate qualification within the stipulated time. In that event, nothing prevented the RJD to discharge him from service. He was allowed to continue as Junior Assistant and, therefore, after he completed eight years of service requiring him to accept the job of an attender in the Last Grade Service, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ____________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 26.08.2011 KH