AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is a writ petition by a Junior Lecturer in English working in Sarada Junior College, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada Questioning the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion as Lecturer in English in Degree College under the control of the third respondent as per G.O.Ms. No. 127, Education (CE.I) Department, dated 7-6-1993, on the ground that he did not possess 55% marks in the qualifying examination i.e., post-graduate decree in English.
My learned brother, Justice G. Bikshapathy while admitting the writ petition directed the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as per the orders in WPMP No.23274/96 dated 10-9-1996. After the receipt of the said order the second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner on two grounds - (1) both the institutions are not under the same management; and (2) the petitioner did not possess 55% of marks in the qualifying examination. Thereafter the petitioner filed WPMP.No.6977/97 seeking a direction to promote him as Lecturer in English in the third respondent-College.
By order dated 24-4-1997 in WPMP No.6977/97 I directed the respondents tore-consider the case of the petitioner once again, having expressed that G.O.Ms. No. 127 did not prescribe 55% of marks in the qualifying examination for promoting the petitioner. Once again, the second respondent in his proceedings - Rc.No.4431/PCI-l/96, dated 3-6-1997 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that as per G.O.Ms.No.12, Education, dated 10-1-1992 one must possess 55% in the qualifying examination for appointment as Lecturer. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WPMP No.39083/97 seeking permission of the Court to amend the prayer in the writ petition by questioning the validity of the said proceedings. As the amendment is only formal one, 1 am inclined to allow this application and accordingly W.P.M.P. No. 39083/97 is ordered for amending the prayer.
On merits of the case, Sri Venkat Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that G.O. Ms.No.12 is applicable only for initial recruitment, in other words for direct recruitment But, it has nothing to do with the promotion. He has drawn my attention to the preamble of the order, as well as the procedure prescribed for the purpose of selection of the candidates for appointment as Lecturers. His case is that G.O.Ms. No. 12 deals with appointment of Lecturers in Degree colleges, as well as the Junior Lecturers in the Junior Colleges. While a pass with 55% marks was prescribed in P.O. Degree for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Degree College, a minimum of 50% was prescribed in the P.O. Degree for appointment as Junior Lecturer in a Junior College. When once a Junior Lecturer is appointed on the basis of the marks secured by him in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 12, under G.O.Ms. No. 127 only promotional avenue was created for Junior Lecturers for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Degree Colleges and a roster was also prescribed for direct recruitment, as well as promotion. From a reading of G.O.Ms. No. 127, nothing more or less can be inferred as the language of the Governmental order is very clear. Hence, the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Lecturer in Degree College is arbitrary and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.
Countering the arguments of the petitioner''s Counsel, Mr. S. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education has drawn my attention to the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, wherein the entire historical back-ground of these Governmental orders was narrated by the petitioner himself and he admitted in so many words that the Government is insisting for 55% marks for appointment as Lecturers, in cases of promotion also. He also fairly conceded that the Government made an exception in the case of private aided colleges in G.O. Ms. No.32, Education (J) Department dated 19-1-1984. In Paragraphs of the said Governmental order, it is stated that the Junior Lecturers working in private Degree Colleges can also be considered for promotion even if he has not secured 55% of the marks subject to the condition that he shall improve the marks to 55% within three years of his promotion, subject to the other conditions prescribed in that Governmental order, failing which he shall be reverted as Junior Lecturer.
In reply to these contentions, Sri Venkat Rao, submits that all these Governmental orders were issued prior to the A. P. College Service Commission Act, 1985 (Act No. 13/85) and they have no application to the facts of the case on hand. But, at the same time, he admitted that the said Act was amended by Act No.25/90, whereunder the Private Aided Colleges were deleted from the purview of the A.P. College Service Commission Act. It is his case that after the said Amendment Act, anew procedure under these G.O.Ms.Nos.12 and 127 was issued and as such the earlier Governmental Orders cannot be looked into. At the same time, the learned Counsel could not place any material to show that these G.Os., were issued in supersession of the earlier orders governing the service conditions of the Lecturers working in Private aided educational institutions. Even assuming, without admitting, that these G.Os. cannot be looked into, definitely these G.Os. will throw light on the intention of the Government with regard to the minimum educational qualification that is being insisted for appointment to the post of Lecturer either by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion.
Sri S.S. Prasad also brought to my notice the Para 4 of G.O.Ms.No.127. It is useful to extract the same.
"Out of 4 vacancies of Lecturers in Degree Colleges the 1st, 2nd and 3rd vacancies in each Department shall be filled by recruitment by the transfer from among the eligible qualified and suitable Junior Lecturers under the same Management and in the absence of such Junior Lecturers by direct recruitment, 4th vacancy shall be filled by direct recruitment."
From this, it is seen that the posts of Lecturers in Degree College shall be filled up from among the "eligible, qualified and suitable" Junior Lecturers. If the contention of Mr. Venkat Rao has to be accepted, there is no need to mention the words "eligible and qualified" as the petitioner is already working as Junior Lecturer. What the Government means from these words is the eligibility that was prescribed for appointment to the posts of Lecturers under G.O.Ms. No. 12 is minimum 55% marks in P.O. Degree. If that is the intention of the Government, the GO., would have simply staled that from among the suitable Junior Lecturers.'' But, though the GO., did not specifically say that one should possess 55% marks for appointment as Lecturer by promotion, the Government definitely means that the candidate should possess minimum required educational qualifications as prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 12. Hence, I cannot accept the contention of Mr. Venkat Rao that one need not secure 55% marks in the P.G. Degree course for appointment as Lecturer from the post of Junior Lecturer. Accordingly, this contention of the teamed Counsel is rejected.
As it is not the case of the Government that these two Governmental Orders were issued in supersession of the earlier G.Os., the moment the private Degree Colleges are deleted from the purview of the College Service Commission, the G.Os. that . were issue will automatically revive and they are valid as long as they are not inconsistent with the new guide-lines issued by the Government. Thus, viewed from they angle, the petitioner''s case has to be considered for appointment as Lecturer in Degree college, with a qualifying rider that unless he improves educational qualifications and secures 55% marks in P.O. Degree within three years, he will be reverted as a Junior Lecturer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.32.
Hence, in view of the above discussion, the petitioner has to succeed on the alternative ground and a direction is given to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Lecturer in Degree College in terms of G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 19-1-1984. As the litigation is going on for a long period, the third respondent is directed to constitute a promotion Committee at the earliest, at any rate not exceeding four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and send proposals for promotion of the petitioner as Lecturer in Degree College in the light of the orders passed in the writ petition. On receiving such proposals, the official respondents are directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner within four weeks thereafter.
With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. Let there be a Mandamus accordingly. No costs.