AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Parvatha Rao, J
The petitioners herein seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in ordering stoppage to Petitioners 2 to 6 herein of payment of two advance increments for possession of law degree qualification and ordering recovery of the said advance increments already paid to them as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
The petitioners rely on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in S. Sankora Rao v. Secretary, Covt. ofA.P., 1997 (1) ALD 465 and in the normal course we would have allowed the Writ Petition by following that Judgment. But, the 1st petitioner happened to be the A. P. Judicial Employees Association and Petitioners 2 to 6, who are said to be the actual persons affected, did not file any affidavit. The affidavit in support of the Writ Petition was given by B. Kasinath Sastry, describing himself as the Organising Secretary of the 1st petitioner-Association. He stated that "the Petitioners 2 to 6 obtained permission from the concerned authorities i.e., the Hon''ble High Court to study Law Degree'''' and that they completed law degree and obtained law degree certificates from the recognised Universities. He also stated that Petitioners 2 and 4 were working as Steno-typists and Petitioners 3,5 and 6 were working as Typists in various Courts in Khammam District under the control of the 4th respondent i.e., the District and Sessions Judge, Khammam.
As the averment made in the affidavit in support of the Writ Petition that Ihe Petitioners 2 to 6 obtained permission from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to study for law degree was intrging, when the matter came up on 18-9-1997 we, inter alia, required the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners to present all the facts relating to the obtaining of the permission for taking up the law degree courses and also whether the petitioners approached the authorities concerned apprising them of the Judgment of this Court in S. Sankara Rao''s case, (supra). In the additional affidavit dated 25-9-1997 filed by B. Kasinath Sastry it was reiterated that Petitioners 2 to 6 obtained permission from the High Court to study law course and no further information was furnished. We, therefore, directed on 26-9-1997 that each of the Petitioners 2 to 6 should file comprehensive affidavits in support of their claim of their having obtained degrees in law specifying what type of course they underwent and what type of degrees they obtained - whether they were Day-Scholars in any college or whether they took correspondence course etc.
B. Kasinath Sastry then filed affidavit dated 16-10-1997 stating as follows :
"I state that I committed a mistake staling that the Petitioners 2 to 6 obtained permission from the concerned authorities. The Petitioners No.2 approached me when I had been to Khammam during the month of June, 1997, he explained about the Law Increments which have to be granted for all the five members working in Khammam Unit acquiring Law qualification. Subsequently he called me by phone to file a Writ Petition expressing their inability to make a representation to the Dist. Authority to grant advance increments as per G.O.Ms.No. 182 Finance and Planning (FW PRC 1) Department dated 17-7-87. When the 2nd petitioner contacted me on Telephone I told him to submit all the particulars with regard to qualification and for obtaining permission from the District and Sessions Judge to prosecute further studies. Accordingly, he intimated to the Petitioners 3 to 5. I came to know subsequently that the Petitioners 3 to 5 now expressing inability to submit the details as they have not obtained permission to prosecute their studies.
I state that I have filed an affidavit initially in routine manner and I have no intention to mislead the Court and I have filed subsequently as per the Court direction an additional affidavit explaining why the petitioners approached directly to the Hon''ble High Court without making representation to the District Judge. .... .... I state that I have filed affidavit in the main Writ Petition and additional affidavit with mistake of facts and I regret for filing the affidavit with mistake of facts and, causing inconvenience to the Hon''ble Court."
The 2nd and 6th petitioners filed affidavits stating that they obtained permissions from the 4th respondent to prosecute the study of three year LL.B., course in the Law College at Khammam (evening session) - the 2nd petitioner under Proceedings in Dis.No.7527 dated 13-9-1991 and the 6th petitioner under Proceedings in Dis.No.2646 dated 26-3-1992. They also stated that the said permission was given subject to the condition that their studied would not interfere with the discharge of their duties. They also stated that the classes in that evening college started from 6 p.m. and that that did not interfere with the work upto 5.30 p.m. in their Courts. These two petitioners also filed copies of the orders obtained by them from the 4th respondent permitting them to undertake the course. Mr. P. Ravi Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 3 and 4, supports the same after obtaining instructions and verification from the records. But, he points out that the 6th petitioner did not recieve any increments because he did not claim the same after informing the 4th respondent of his having acquired the law degree and that, therefore, there is no question of effecting any recoveries from the 6th petitioner.
We find that so far as writ Petitioners 2 and 6 are concerned, they are fully covered by the decision of this Court in S. Sankara Rao''s case, (supra) and that, therefore, they are entitled to the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 17-7-1987 and G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 3-4-1996 as interpreted by this Court in S. Sankara Rao''s case (supra)
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed as regards Petitioners 2 and 6.
Petitioner No.3 states in his affidavit that even though he was working at Khammam he studied in Hindu Law College at Machilipatnam and obtained the law degree from the Nagarjuna University in the year 1992 and that he underwent that course without obtaining permission from the District Judge, Khammam. He further explains in his affidavit as follows :
"Since there is no Law College at the time of my prosecuting the Law at Khammam where I am working, as such I could not obtain permission from the District Judge, Khammam for prosecuting the Law Degree. The College authorities never insisted anybody to have requisite attendance. I was allowed to write the examination for three years without any objection, I have applied leave for the purpose of examinations."
He is present in Court now. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, after obtaining instructions from him, states that he obtained medical certificate only for absence for about 25 days every year of the three year degree course and for the balance period he got marked attendance even though in fact he did not attend - this has to be so because he did not apply for any leave from the unit head.
Thus, the 3rd petitioner got admission and joined law degree course in Hindu Law College at Machilipalnam without obtaining permission from the unit head and without regularly attending the classes and by getting his attendance marked even though he was in fact not attending. Therefore, the methods adopted by him are obviously not proper.
The higher qualification contemplate under GO.Ms.No.182 dated 17-7-1987 is intended to be for improving the efficiency of the employee. That is the reason why it is stipulated that the higher qualification "should be relevant to the post held". It cannot be got by hook or crook without undergoing the course in proper manner; it has to be acquired after studying for the course in the manner required by the University conferring the degree, and before undertaking the course of study for acquisition of the qualification proper permission of the authority concerned has to be obtained. The advance increments contemplated under the said G.O., are only as an incentive. This was stated by a Division Bench of this Court in Md. Azamathulla Khan v. State ofA.P. 1996 (2) ALD 873 as follows :
"The only hypothesis, we think, for the justification of bestowal of the benefits of advance increments on such disparate departments/categories could be that the scheme was intended to ''provide adequate incentive to acquire higher qualification'' as was specifically mentioned in the earlier G.O, G.O.Ms.No.89, dated 26-3-1980. It was not the stated intention of the Government that only in certain departments specialised skill was called for and possessors of higher qualification relevant to the post in those categories alone should be singled out for the benefit. ...... The rationale for giving these types of incentives appears to be that in the case of a typist or L.D.C., the acquisition of degree qualification would enable him to discharge his functions more effectively; a clerk can articulate his views in a better manner if he were to be a graduate than otherwise, and a typist would understand the subject matter entrusted to him for typing in a better way if he were to be a graduate than otherwise. An examiner in the High Court, whose main responsibility is to correct certified copies of the judgments, would be in a better position to detect mistakes were he to be a graduate than otherwise. Same was the case with regard to secondary grade teachers who became graduates and also subsequently acquired B.Ed., degree. This supposition of ours is fully corroborated by clause (b) of Paragraph4 of G.O.Ms.No.182 which in categorical terms lays down :
"The higher qualifications, the acquisition of which entitles one for additional increments now being sanctioned should be relevant to the post held by him.".
It, therefore, follows that the twin factors for ascertainment of the right of an employee for the benefit of claiming advance increments under G.O.Ms.No. 182 are : i) whether he acquired a qualification higher than the one prescribed for the post held by him; and ii) vyhether such acquired higher qualification is relevant to the post held by him, when these two tests are satisfied; the employee is entitled to the benefit of advance increments.''''
This is in keeping with the fundamental duty enshrined in clause (j) of Article 51A of the Constitution of India, which provides as follows :
"51A(j) : to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement"
Obtaining degrees by employing dubious methods only for the purpose of acquiring additional increments is anathema to self-improvement for achieving excellence. It cannot be by debasing the value ethos. Petitioner No.3 himself stated that he managed to gel marked attendance even though in fact he did not attend the college. It cannot be otherwise because he was working at Khammam and he could not have attended classes regularly every day at Machilipatnam. He admitted that it was not his case that he obtained prior sanction and sought leave to enable him to attend classes conducted by the Hindu Law College at Machilipatnam. We are, therefore, of the view that Petitioner No.3 is not entitled to the benefit of GO.Ms.No.182 dated 17-7-1987 pursuant to the clarification given by another Division Bench of this Court in S. Sankara Rao ''s case (supra).
The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that this would amount to invidious discrimination and would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. She submits that once the University confers a law degree, it is not for this Court to enquire as to how that degree is obtained even though the facts are not in dispute as in this i.e., that the 3rd petitioner got marked attendance without attending classes and pursued the law degree course in Hindu Law College at Machilipatnam while working at Khammam without obtaining the permission of the unit head. We do not agree. On a reading of GO.Ms.No.I82 dated 17-7-1987 and keeping in view the justification for the benefit sought to be conferred under the said G.O., as stated in Md. Azamathulla Khan''s case (supra), it follows that the higher qualification contemplated in the said G.O., is not ajust a paper qualification without undergoing the course - it does not contemplate dubious acquisition of the qualification by trickery. It will be open for the authority concerned to enquire into the manner and method adopted in obtaining the higher qualification befofe granting the advance increments under the said G.O. While interpreting the rule relating to acquisition of LL.B. (Academic) degree of (he Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, the Supreme Court in Baldev Raj Sharma Vs. Bar Council of India and Others, held as follows :
"The three years'' course of study envisaged by that sub-clause in the Act intends that the three years'' course of study in law must be pursued by maintaining regular attendance.... ...There is a substantial difference between a course of study pursued as a regular student and a course of study pursued as a private candidate. The policy underlying the relevant provisions of the Bar Council Rules indicates the great emphasis laid on regular attendance at the law classes. The conditions are specifically spelt out when the Act is read along with the Rules.''''
In that case Baldev Raj Sharma obtained degree of Bachelor of Laws (Academic) from the Kurukshelra University after two years'' study as a private candidate i.e., without regular attendance. Thereafter he joined the LL.B. (Professional) course in the 3rd year in Kanpur University as a regular student - the Kanpur University conferred two distinct degrees, LL.B. (General), which was a two year course, and LL.B. (Professional), which was a three year course and the person who had been awarded the LL.B, (General) degree was eligible for admission to the LL.B. (Professional) third year. Baldev Raj Sharma contended that there was no distinction in the Rules and Regulations of the Kanpur University on whether LL.B. (General) course should be pursued by regular attendance or as a non-collegiate sludent and that LL.B. degree of the Kanpur University was recognised by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment as an Advocate and that he attended classes as a regular sludent of LL.B. (Professional) course i.e., third year course, in the Kanpur University as required by the Rules and Regulations farmed by that University and appeared for the final examination and was declared successful and was conferred LL.B. (Professional) degree by the Kanpur University. The Supreme Court held that the LL.B. (Professional) degree contemplated for enrolment as an Advocate was by attending classes for all the three years and attending classes for the last year was not sufficient. The principle laid down in this decision applies a fortiori to the facts of the present case. Though Nagarjuna University conferred LLB. degree to the 3rd petitioner, it is obvious mat he obtained the degree by adopting nefarious methods by getting attendance marked without attending classes and lhat does not denote excellence which is the objective for giving advance increments under G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 17-7-1987.
We, therefore, hold that the 3rd petitioner is not entitled to the advance increments under G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 17-7-1997.
Petitioners 4 and 5 are also similarly placed as Petitioner No.3. Petitioner No.4 stated in his affidavit dated 16-10-1997 that he joined the three year degree course in law at Maratwada University, Nanded and that the college authorities never insisted on his attendance and he was allowed to write the examinations. He admitted that he did not take permission for such study. In the case of the 5th petitioner also it is stated that she was appointed and posted in Munsif Magistrate''s Court at Madhira as Copyist in the year 1983, that she was promoted as Typist in the same Court in the year 1984 and that in the year 1987 she was transferred to the Principal District Munsifs Court, at Khammam and once again transferred back to Munsif Magistrate''s Court at Madhira in the same year. According to her, she was allotted a seat in the University College of Law (Evening) at Warangal. How she pursued studies at Warangal while working at Madhira she states in her affidavit dated 17-10-1997 as follows :
"To reach Warangal from Madhira it will take two hours journey and from Khammam to reach Warangal it will take one and half hour journey. From Madhira the train used to start by 5 or 5.30 p.m. instead of 4 O'' clock. The college lime is from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. The lecturers used to come by 7 O''clock and some times 7,30 p.m. also. That my husband is working at Madhira as a private employee, he used to accompany along with me now and then to the college at Warangal. In return journey from Warangal to Madhira the train starts from 10.30 p.m. and I along with my husband used to reach Madhira at 12 or 12.30 am. Some limes I used to slay in my relatives house. I have attended -the college as much as possible and the college authorities never insisted anybody to attend the college compulsorily as there is no shortage of attendance intimated to me by the college authorities and I was allowed to write the examinations. When I was transferred to Khammam, frequent train facilities were there to attend the college. I wrote the examinations as Ex-sludent by applying leave and I could able to pass examination by 1993 September though I was admitted in the College in the year, 1987 due to my family responsibilities.
I state that I have not obtained permission from the District Judge, Khammam lo prosecute my studies of law as there is no college at Madhira or at Khammam."
From Ihe facts narrated by her it is obvious that it would be virtually impossible for her to go every day after office hours from Madhira to Warangal and then return to Madhira She, therefore, sought to explain it by saying that the college authorities never insisted anybody to attend the college compulsorily. Though we sympathise with her plight, she cannot be differentiated from 3rd and 4th petitioners. She also admittedly did not take any permission from the unit head for pursuing her studies.
In the circumstances, we hold that Petitioners 4 and 5 are also not entitled to claim advance increments under G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 17-7-1987. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed against Petitioners 3, 4 and 5.
In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed i.e., as regards Petitioners 2 and 6.
Before we close, we have to observe that it is proper that the unit heads should examine the claims for advance increments under G.O.Ms.No.182 dated 17-7-1987 in the light of the observations in this order.