Telangana High Court
Md. Jameel Pasha vs Kakatiya University on 2 November, 2020
Author: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, B.Vijaysen Reddy
High Court for the State of Telangana
The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
and
The Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy
W.A. No. 454 of 2020
Date: 02-11-2020
Between:
Md. Jameel Pasha
...Appellant
And
Kakatiya University
Rep. by its Registrar,
Warangal
...Respondent
Counsel for the appellant: Mr. S. Lakshmikanth Counsel for the respondent: Mr. A. Venkateswar Rao, SC for KU The Court made the following:
2
HCJ & BVR, J W.A.No. 454 of 2020 Dt: 02-11-2020 Judgment: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) Aggrieved by the order dated 01-10-2020, passed by a learned Single Judge, in W.P. No. 17146 of 2020, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner-appellant has approached this Court.
For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.
The petitioner had sought the following relief before the learned Single Judge:
".... Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed action of the Respondent University in not considering the candidature of the Petitioner for the post of Laboratory Assistant in the ensuing interviews to be held in the Respondent University pursuant to Notification No. 263/A3/KU/2015 dated 21-09-2015 and its Addendum Notification No.383/A3/KU/2015, dated 09-12-2019 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order pleased to declare the action of the respondents as illegal, irregular in violation of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India..."
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as store keeper on compassionate grounds. The respondent- University had issued a notification on 21-09-2015, 3 HCJ & BVR, J W.A.No. 454 of 2020 Dt: 02-11-2020 and later, it issued an addendum on 09-12-2019, for recruiting a regular employee having two years of service as Store Keeper or its equivalent post, for the post of Laboratory Assistant. According to the notification, the eligibility requirement for the said post was Bachelor of Science degree with Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry (MPC) or Biology, Zoology and Chemistry (Bi.Z.C.) from a recognized university. Despite the fact that the petitioner had a B.Sc. in Mathematics, Physics and Computer Science, his application was not considered by the University. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge As mentioned above, by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that since the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility requirement, the University was legally justified in not entertaining his application. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
Mr. S. Lakshmikanth, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that on earlier occasion i.e., on 02-01-2013, a similar notification was issued by the University. Even in the said notification, the eligibility requirement was shown as B.Sc, degree with M.P.C., or B.Z.C., from a recognized university. However, the University had selected one Mr. D. Srinivasa Rao, despite the fact that he had a B.Sc., degree with Maths, Physics and 4 HCJ & BVR, J W.A.No. 454 of 2020 Dt: 02-11-2020 Computer Science. Thus, the case of the petitioner and that of Mr. D. Srinivasa Rao is on identical footing. Hence, the petitioner had entertained a legitimate expectation that his application would be considered by the University. However, the learned Single Judge has ignored the said facet of the case. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
On the other hand, Mr. A. Venkateswar Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the University, submits that the legitimate expectation cannot be based on a mistake made by the University on the earlier occasion. Moreover, there cannot be estoppel against a statute. Since the eligibility requirement has been prescribed by the University as B.Sc., degree with M.P.C., or B.Z.C., from a recognised university, the said requirement necessarily has to be fulfilled. Lastly, that the concept of equality contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be applied in the negative sense. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge was legally justified in dismissing the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and examined the documents submitted with the Writ Appeal.
5
HCJ & BVR, J W.A.No. 454 of 2020 Dt: 02-11-2020 Needless to say, a legitimate expectation cannot arise from an illegal act committed by the University. For, the expectation is an illegitimate one, if the petitioner is of the opinion that the University should be directed to again commit an illegality. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly unacceptable.
Moreover, once a qualification has been prescribed by the Ordinance of the University, as reflected in the notification, there cannot be estoppel against the statute. Thus, merely because the University may have ignored the eligibility requirement in the year 2013, the University cannot be directed to violate such ordinance. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in claiming that merely because his case is identical to the case of Mr. D. Srinivasa Rao, the University should be directed to entertain his application.
It is, indeed, trite to state that the concept of equality can never be used in a negative sense. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that Article 14 of the Constitution of India should be given effect to in a negative sense.
Considering the fact that the eligibility requirement is of not only possessing the Bachelor of Science degree, but 6 HCJ & BVR, J W.A.No. 454 of 2020 Dt: 02-11-2020 possessing it in particular subjects namely M.P.C., or B.Z.C., considering the fact that the petitioner has B.Sc degree in Mathematics, Physics and Computer Science, obviously, the petitioner does not possess the eligible requirement as prescribed by the University. Hence, the University is certainly legally justified in not entertaining the petitioner's application.
For the reasons given above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This appeal being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, stand disposed of.
_____________________________ (Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ) ____________________ (B. Vijaysen Reddy, J) Dt: 2nd November, 2020 lur