Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Phaneendra Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 January, 2023
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION (AT) No.641 of 2021
ORDER :
This petition has been filed declaring the action of the respondents in not prescribing relevant educational qualifications in the Annexure appended to Rule 5 of AP Fisheries Subordinate Service Rules (for short "the Rules") notified in G.O.Ms.No.131 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (Fish.I) Department dated 30.06.1993 in the matter of filing up of vacancies of Fisheries Development Officers by transfer and promotion by individuals belonging to category- II who do not possess the relevant educational qualifications as prescribed in respect of direct recruitment for the very same posts as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to BC-B Viswa Brahmin community and he is an aspirant for the post of Fisheries Development Officer, which post is governed by the provisions of the 2 Rules as amended from time to time. As he possessed the qualification of B.F.Sc, is qualified to hold the post Fisheries Development Officer.
4. The main contention of the petitioner is that Rule 2 of the rules deals with Constitution of service. The post of Inspector of Fisheries come under Class-I Category-I and the said post has been redesignated as Fisheries Development Officer. Rule 3 deals with method of appointment. As per the provision of the said rule, the said post shall be filled by Direct Recruitment by promotion form Category-3; by recruitment by transfer of Senior Assistants (Ministerial services) int eh Fisheries Department; and by recruitment by transfer of Assistant Section Officers working in Secretariat. Category 2 consists of the posts of Assistant Inspectors of Fisheries including Assistant Farm Superintendents. For the purpose of direct recruitment, one must have passed a degree of B.F.Sc. as per G.O.Ms.No.32 Animal Husbandry (Fish.I) Department dated 16.04.2011 whereas in respect of promotions, no qualifications are prescribed to hold the higher post of Fisheries Development Officer. A pass in (i) Departmental Test including Officers 3 Part-I; (ii) Departmental Test-I; and (iii) Departmental Test including practical training. From a careful perusal of the aforesaid Rule position would make it evident that for those who are sought to be appointed by promotion as Fisheries Development Officer absolutely, no qualifications are prescribed, whereas for direct recruitment certain qualifications are prescribed. Hence, the action of the respondents in not prescribing any qualifications in the matter of filling up of the posts by Fisheries Development Officers by promotion is wholly illegal and arbitrary.
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader while reiterating the averments made in the counter contended that the qualification for the post of Fisheries Development Officer in various methods appointment GOMs No.88 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.I) Department, dated 8.9.1999, detailed as under:
Method of Qualification
appointment
Class.I of
Category-5
5. Fisheries i) Direct Must have passed a degree
Development recruitment of B.F.Sc., or M.Sc.
Officer (Aquaculture or
4
Mariculture, M.S.c
(Fisheries)/ Marine
Biology, M.Sc., (Zoology)
ii) By recruitment i) Accounts Test for
by promotion Subordinate
Officers Part-I
ii) Departmental Test-I
iii) Departmental Test-II
including
practical training
iii). By recruitment 1). Must have passed a by transfer degree of BSc., (Zoology) of university in India or any other
2). Must have passed:
i) Accounts test for Subordinate Officers part-I
ii) Departmental Test-I
6. The Government have issued orders by substituting the existing qualification against the method of Direct recruitment of category of FDO substituted namely Bachelor of Fisheries Science only. Learned Government Pleader further submits that while framing the Service Rules, the Department of Fisheries scrutinized and examined in all angles and keeping in view of the promotion avenues of the in-service candidates, the service rule were prescribed wisely. He further submits that as the petitioner is an aspirant for FDO, h e can apply for the post if he fulfills the qualification required for it and his right to application would not be denied. Learned Government 5 Pleader mainly contended that the Service Rules were framed during the year 1993, till now, no employee is challenging the A.P. Fisheries Service Rules. The Department is competent to prescribe the qualifications for each category of post in the Department. However, the petitioner's plea will be examined with the present conditions and circumstances and if necessary suitable amendments will be recommended. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court observed that though the petitioner is an aspirant for Fisheries Development Officer. He can apply for the post if he fulfills the qualifications required for it and his right to application would not be denied. But the petitioner filed the present petition as a public interest litigation, which cannot be entertained. Therefore, this Court find no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
6
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : -01-2023 Gvl 7 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION (AT) No.641 of 2021 Date : .01.2023 Gvl 8