Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dr. B. Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., Ph.D., ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By ... on 18 December, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)ALT104
Author: Ar. Lakshmanan
Bench: Ar. Lakshmanan
JUDGMENT AR. Lakshmanan, C.J.
1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. In the Writ Petition, the appellant-writ petitioner challenges the appointment of the 3rd respondent - Dr.(Mrs).K.V. Ramani as Joint Chief Environmental Scientist in the 2nd respondent - Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board - on contract basis and also questions the correctness of G.O.Ms.No.4, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (Env.) Department, dated 3-1-2000 in regularizing the services of the 3rd respondent as Joint Chief Environmental Scientist as illegal, unconstitutional, unreasonable and unfair.
2. By Resolution No.1063 of 82nd Board Meeting held on 26-10-1996, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board had taken a decision to fill-up the post of Joint Chief Environmental Scientist in the category of Superintending Engineer, on contract basis. The Board also resolved that all the vacancies including the Joint Chief Environmental Scientist be filled up on a contract basis with flexibility of their absorption based on their performance. In the case of Joint Chief Environmental Scientist, the Board suggested 1st Class M.Sc. (Chemistry) with Ph.D. as essential qualification. By G.O. Ms. No. 189, dated 7-12-1998 the Government after careful examination of the matter appointed the 3rd respondent as Joint Chief Environmental Scientist in the Board as per the recommendations of the selection committee, on contract basis, for a period of two years from the date of assuming the duty with flexibility of her absorption in the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board based on her performance and subject to the other terms and conditions to be stipulated by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board separately. By G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 3-1-2000, the Government of Andhra Pradesh appointed the 3rd respondent on regular basis as Joint Chief Environmental Scientist in the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board in the scale of Rs.5770-9260, subject to the outcome of the result in W.P.No.26394 of 1999 filed by Dr. B. Krishna Reddy, Senior Environmental Scientist in the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. The above W.P.No.26394 of 1999, which was filed to set aside G.O.Ms.No.189, dated 7.12.1998 and the subsequent order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 3-1-2000, was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 15-11-2001; against which, this Writ Appeal is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned single Judge has committed an error to the facts existing on record inasmuch as the appellant never applied for the post in question and hence, the question of his not attending the interview does not arise. Learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission. In fact, the appellant-writ petitioner has not applied for the said post and, therefore, the question of his attending the interview does not arise.
4. We have perused the pleadings and the grounds raised in the Writ Petition and also in this appeal.
5. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Governmental Orders appointing the 3rd respondent as Joint Chief Environmental Scientist in the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, which are impugned in the Writ Petition, deprive the promotional avenues of in-service candidates, and, therefore, both G.O.Ms.No.189, dated 7-12-1998 and G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 3-1-2000 are liable to be set aside.
6. It is true that the 3rd respondent originally sought to be engaged on a contract basis by G.O.Ms.No.189, dated 7-12-1998 for a period of two years and later by G.O.Ms.No.4, dated 3-1-2000 she was appointed permanently as Joint Chief Environmental Scientist in the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, subject to the outcome of W.P.No.26394 of 1999. It is pertinent to notice that by Resolution No.1063 of 82nd Board Meeting held on 26.10.1996, the Board fixed the essential qualification for the vacancy of Joint Chief Environmental Scientist as I Class M.Sc.(Chemistry) with Ph.D. Admittedly, the appellant-writ petitioner is a Post-Graduate in Bio-Sciences and also acquired Ph.D., but does not possess the essential qualification prescribed for the said post, viz., I Class M.Sc. (Chemistry). According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the 2nd respondent-Board has deliberately and purposefully evolved a new method of recruitment for filling-up the post of Joint Chief Environmental Scientist and prescribed tailor made qualifications suitable for the 3rd respondent herein and simultaneously ensured that there will not be adequate competition for the post and then eventually absorbed the 3rd respondent into service.
7. The appellant by the Writ Petition and also in this appeal has been objecting the method and manner in which the appointment of the 3rd respondent was made and achieved by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the notification of the 2nd respondent has ensured that the best talent is kept at bay and that, therefore, the action of respondents 1 and 2 is liable to be declared as illegal. We are unable to countenance the said submissions.
8. The principal contention raised by the appellant, as stated above, was that the Governmental orders appointing the 3rd respondent as Joint Chief Environmental Scientist, which are sought to be quashed, deprive the promotional avenues of in-service candidates and consequently, they are liable to be quashed.
9. It is settled law that it is for the authorities to fix the promotion channel and also the qualifications for a particular post commensurate with the responsibility attached to the post. In the instant case, by the Board's Resolution No.1063 of 82nd Board Meeting, dated 26-10-1996, a superior qualification has been prescribed, viz., I Class M.Sc.(Chemistry) with Ph.D. In other words, it is for the employer and in the instant case, the competent authority, to create a promotional channel and prescribe the qualification commensurate with the responsibilities attached to the said post either on contract basis or on permanent basis and the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not ordinarily extend to scrutiny of such matters. In our opinion, the order of the learned single Judge is correct and, therefore, we affirm the same.
10. The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.