Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sanapala V.L.N. Uday Kumar, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 February, 2021
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
W.P.No.4259 OF 2021
Between:
1. Sanapala VLN Uday Kumar
2. Bonu Manjula
... Petitioners
and
The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by
Its Principal Secretary
Higher Education Department and another.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25th February, 2021.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY :
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers :
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be :
marked to Law Reports/Journals?
3 Whether Their Lordship wish to see the :
fair copy of the Judgment?
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
+ WRIT PETITION No.4259 OF 2021
% 25-02-2021
# Sanapala VLN Uday Kumar and another
... Petitioners
vs.
$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep by its Principal Secretary
Higher Education Department,
and another.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ravi Kondaveeti
^Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Higher Education
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred :
1. (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 647
2. (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 55
3. (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 337
4. 2020 LawSuit (SC) 639
5. 2001 LawSuit (AP) 403
6. Civil Appeal No(s). 4597 of 2019
7. Civil Appeal Nos.2250-2252 of 2020
8. Civil Appeal No.4384 of 2009 dt 16.07.2009
9. 1999(3)SLR372
10. AIR 1959 SC 896
11. AIR 1991 SC 1933
12. AIR 1989 SC 989
13. AIR 1981 SC 411
14. (1967)ILLJ698SC
15. [1977]2SCR28
16. AIR 1989 SC 1133
17. 1961CriLJ773
18. [1981]2SCR742
19. AIR 1988 SC 2255
20. [2001]2SCR927
21. [2001]3SCR641
22. AIR1997SC1446
23. [2001]252ITR1(SC)
24. 2016 (1) SCC 454
25. (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 67
26. (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 454
27. (2017) 11 Supreme Court Cases 521
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.4259 OF 2021
ORDER:-
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"......pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not conducting interview to the petitioners and not considering their cases for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Political Science in pursuance of Notification No 26/2018 dated 31.12.2018 issued by the 2nd Respondent on the ground that they do not possess undergraduate degree in the relevant subject is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioners are entitled for consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Political Science without insisting undergraduate degree certificate in the relevant subject and pass such other order or orders ....."
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the 1st petitioner completed his post graduate and joined in Andhra University to pursue Ph.D (Full time). The 1st petitioner obtained Ph.D degree in Public Administration from Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Andhra University. The 2nd petitioner acquired Post graduation in M.A. Public Administration from Andhra University. She also completed M.A in Political Science from IGNOU in the year 2016. Presently she is pursuing Ph.D in Political Science in Andhra University.
The 2nd respondent issued a notification calling for applications from the interested candidates for the post of Lecturer in Degree colleges in A.P. Collegiate Education Service and in response to the notification, the petitioners submitted their applications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Political Science. The 2nd respondent on 11.01.2019 issued Web Note 4 informing that the candidates who possess higher qualification than the prescribed qualification shall also be considered for selection along with the candidates who possessed prescribed qualifications. In pursuance of the above Web Note, the petitioners applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and also for the post of Lecturer in Commerce. The 2nd petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Political Science. Both are qualified for interview for the post of Lecturer in Political Science and call letters were also issued calling these petitioners for interview on 12.02.2021 along with relevant certificates. Accordingly, both the petitioners attended to interview on 12.02.2021 and produced relevant certificates pertaining to the qualification in the office of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent verified all the original certificates submitted by these petitioners and after verification of their certificates they orally informed the petitioners that they are not qualified to appear for interview as they did not possess under graduate degree in the relevant subject i.e., Political Science or in Public Administration and therefore they were not allowed to participate in the interview process.
The specific contention of the petitioners is that as per Rule 8 of A.P. Collegiate Education Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (C.E.I.1) Department, dated 14.05.2007 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Degree college by direct recruitment (i) one should have good academic record with a minimum 55% marks or an equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at Master's Degree level, in the relevant subject obtained from the Universities recognized in India and (ii) should have passed National Eligibility 5 Test (NET) for Lecturer conducted by UGC, CSIR, or similar tests accredited by the UGC or SLET conducted by APPSC.
It is also further contended that similar qualifications as prescribed by the above said rules as incorporated in the above said Notification dated 31.12.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent, as the petitioners were qualified possessing Master Degree in relevant subject have applied to the posts in relevant subjects but the candidature of these petitioners was not considered for interview on the ground that they did not possess under graduate degree in the relevant subject i.e., Political Science/Public Administration and thereby they are disqualified for consideration is contrary to the statutory rules.
It is also further contended that the respondents insisting the petitioners to produce under graduate degree certificates in relevant subject is contrary to the rules prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.47 Higher Education Department dated 14.05.2007 and thereby notification issued by the 2nd respondent incorporated a new clause through Lr.No.APSCHE/ums-1035/Clarification- equiv-Qualifications/2018, dated 03.07.2018 by which they have prescribed qualification in Under Graduate Level also. However, Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India prescribed the qualification only at Master's Degree Level. The respondents cannot issue circulars contrary to the rules passed under Article 309. The said circular said to have been issued by the 2nd respondent is only executive instructions. It is well settled law that executive instructions cannot override the statutory rules. Similarly situated persons who have not studied relevant subjects at graduation level were given appointments by duly considering 6 their post graduation degree in the relevant subject. But in the case of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent did not permit the petitioners to participate in the interview as the petitioners did not possess qualification in under graduate degree in the relevant subject and refusal to interview these petitioners, on the said ground is illegal and in violation of Rules farmed under Article 309 of Constitution of India and thereby requested to issue a direction to the respondents to declare the notification to the extent of amending portion, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear for the interview and consider for appointment to the post in relevant subject.
3. The respondents did not file their counter, but submitted their arguments at length.
4. During hearing, Mr Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioners mainly demonstrated that the rules prescribed certain qualifications for appointment of Lecturer in relevant subject. Issue of any circular, more particularly, prescribing qualification in under graduate level in the relevant subject is invalid and it will not override the statutory rule vide G.O.Ms.No.47 Higher Education Department dated 14.05.2007. On this ground alone, the notification to the extent of prescribing qualification in the under graduate level in the relevant subject is illegal.
5. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in State of Uttaranchal Versus Alok Sharma and others1, so also Ashish 1 (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 647 7 Kumar Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others2 and Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Versus Manmohan Singh and another3.
6. On the strength of the principles laid down in the above three judgments, requested to declare new clause dated 30.07.2018 while declaring the action of the respondents in not permitting these petitioners to appear for interview as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to permit these petitioners to appear for the interview for the selection for the post of Lecturers in relevant subject.
7. Sri Addanki Ramachandra Murthy, learned Standing counsel for APPSC contended that the petitioners accepted the terms and conditions of notifications and appeared for the examination, cannot now contend that the notification is legal and they waived their right to question the validity of condition in the notification and thereby the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition, that apart the petitioners did not possess requisite qualification at the under graduate level in the relevant subject as incorporated in terms of Lr.No.APSCHE/ums- 1035/Clarification-equiv-Qualifications/2018, dated 03.07.2018. Consequently, denial of opportunity to participate in the interview to these petitioners is not legal or arbitrary and thereby the petition is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself and requested to dismiss this writ petition.
8. Whereas, the learned Government Pleader for Services-III while supporting the action of the respondents placed reliance on 2 (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 55 3 (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 337 8 the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Anand Yadav & Ors V/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Others4 and in District Collector, Anantapur v/s K Sujatha5 and also judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through its Secretary Versus Sandeep Shriram Warade and others6 and also the judgment in Dr Thingujam Achouba Singh & Ors., Versus Dr H.Nabachandra Singh & Ors. etc.,7. On the strength of these principles, he requested to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioners.
9. Considering the rival contentions and perusing the material available on record, the point that arisen for consideration in this writ petition is:
Whether incorporation of clause as prescribed qualification that the candidate must possess a degree in relevant subject by Lr.No.APSCHE/ums-1035/Clarification- equiv-Qualifications/2018, dated 03.07.2018 and in the notification as annexure-III without amending the Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.47 Higher Education (CEI1) Department dated 14.05.2007 for appointment to the post of Lecturer in degree college by direct recruitment is legal and valid? if not liable to be set aside ?
POINT :
10. Admittedly, the notification was issued by the 2nd respondent for recruiting the candidates for the post of Lecturers specified vide Notification No.26/2018, dated 31.12.2018 in different fields. As per notification, the prescribed qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer is prescribed in para-3 of the 4 2020 LawSuit (SC) 639 5 2001 LawSuit (AP) 403 6 Civil Appeal No(s). 4597 of 2019 7 Civil Appeal Nos.2250-2252 of 2020 9 notification in the present writ petition, which is extracted hereunder:
Para-3 : EDUCATIONAL QUALFIICATIONS:
A candidate should possess the academic qualifications and experience including practical experience prescribed, if any, for the post on the date of the notification for direct recruitment issued by the concerned recruiting agency.
Name of the Educational qualifications post
i) Good academic record with a minimum of 55% marks or an equivalent Grade of B in the 7 point scale with letter grades O, A, B, C, D, E & F at the Masters Degree level, in the relevant subject, obtained from the Universities recognized in India.
ii) Should have passed National Eligibility Test (NET) for lecturers conducted by UGC, CSIR or similar tests accredited by the UGC or SLET conducted by the Osmania University in terms of G.O.ms.No.19, Higher Education (CE.I-1) Department, dated 24.02.2011 and by Andhra University, Visakhapatnam in terms of G.O.ms.No.57, Higher Education (CE.I-1) department dated 19.12.2014.
Lecturer in N.B.: 1. A relaxation of 5% marks may be provided Government (from 55% to 50% of marks) at the Master's Level for Degree colleges the SC/ST/PH (as per G.O.Ms.No.91, Higher in A.P. Collegiate Education (CE.I.1) Department dated 08.09.2004) education service category.
2. A relaxation of 5% marks may be provided (from 55% to 50% of marks) to the Ph.D., Degree holders who have passed their Master's Degree prior to 19.09.1991.
3. "NET/SLET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Lecturers in government Degree Colleges".
Provided, however, that candidates who are or have been awarded Ph.D degree in compliance of the University Grants Commission (minimum standards and procedure for award of Ph.D Degree) Regulations, 2009 shall be exempted from the requirements of the minimum eligibility condition of NET/SLET for recruitments and appointment of Lecturers in Government Degree Colleges. (As per G.O.Ms.No.47 Higher Education (CE.I-1) Department, dated 14.05.2007 read with G.O.Ms.No.128 Higher Education (CE.I-1) Department, dated 24.08.2010. 10
11. At the end and below the table in Notification, a specific note is mentioned as follows:
"Note : Please see Annexure-III for subject equivalency particulars."
12. In Annexure-III, the subject equivalent particulars are mentioned in Sl.No.8 - Lecturers in Political Science, the qualification at PG level is mentioned as "M.A. (Political Science), M.A. Public Administration" in Column No.3. However, in the Column No.4 - Qualification in Under Graduate Level is mentioned as "same subject in Under Graduate Level as clarified by APSCHE vide Lr.No.APSCHE/ums-1035/Clarification-equiv- Qualifications/ 2018, dated 03.07.2018."
13. Thus, as seen from the notification along with its annexure, candidates who have applied for the post of Lecturer must also possess a degree in the same subject. But as per the rules notified by the State for recruitment of Lecturers in degree colleges by direct recruitment vide G.O.Ms.No.47 Higher Education (CE.I-1) Department dated 14.05.2007, the qualification is as follows:
" The posts of Lecturers in the subjects under restructured courses like computer Sciences, Computer Applications, Biotechnology, Genetics, Tourism, and Travel Management, Medical Lab Technician, Dairying etc., and in any other subject where no junior Lecturer in the same subject is available in Government Junior College, such posts shall be filled by direct recruitment only."11
14. Undisputedly the petitioners did not possess any degree in the same subject in graduation and they did not comply with the requirement as per Lr.No.APSCHE/ums-1035/Clarification- equiv-Qualifications/ 2018, dated 03.07.2018. Whether failure to possess degree in the same subject or relevant subject disqualified the petitioners for being appointed as Lecturer is to be decided by this Court at this stage.
15. Admittedly, the letter referred to above prescribing qualification at the under graduate level in the same subject is only by administrative instructions, whereas rules vide G.O.Ms.No.47 Higher Education (CE.I-1) Department dated 14.05.2007 were issued by exercising power by State legislature under Article 309 of Constitution of India. Therefore, letter prescribing additional requirement i.e., possessing degree in the same subject or relevant subject is in the nature of administrative or executive instructions.
16. Administrative/executive directions/ instructions/ regulations will be issued by the higher authorities to the lower authorities in the absence of a rule or enactment pertaining to a specific issue or to compensate or fill the lacunas in the existing laws and thereby constructing better standards or platform to tackle the issues. The administrative direction is otherwise designated as administrative quasi law, or administrative quasi legislations. Thus the directions can be specific that is formulated and applied to a particular purpose or, particular case, or it may be general in nature, laid down general principles, practices or procedures to be followed in similar cases and further these 12 directions executive or administrative issued in the form of letters, orders published in Gazette.
17. In contemporary India, the Government enjoys indefinite or boundless administrative powers, therefore, the areas of issuing administrative directions are quite ample. The concept of administrative/executive direction has its roots in Article 73 and Article 162 of the Constitution, they serve as the substratum. These articles deal with administrative powers of the Government and such directions are generally issued under Rules.
18. According to Article 73 of the Constitution of India, the executive power of the Union shall extend to the matters with respect of which Parliament has power to make laws. Similarly, according to Article 162 of Constitution of India, executive power of State extends to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws. These provisions are exclusively deal with executive power of the Government and do not confer any kind of legislative power. At times, statutory powers are granted to issue directions. A direction issued under statutory power prevails over a direction issued under general administrative power.
19. In the case of the Secretary to the Government of Haryana & Others Versus Vidya Sagar8, wherein two circulars were issued on the same subject and the former was general and the latter was specific. The Apex Court held that the latter will prevail. A direction does not confer any enforceable right on an individual or impose an obligation on the administrative or individual.
20. In "Suresh Chandra Singh v Fertilizers Corporation 8 Civil Appeal No.4384 of 2009 dt 16.07.2009 13 of India9", the High Court of Allahabad held that administrative instructions are only advisory and no writ can be issued to enforce them. The principle was upheld in the case of "Abdulla Rowther v STA Tribunal10", while holding that the validity of an administrative action taken in breach of an administrative direction is not challengeable and the court will refuse to issue any writ even when there is a patent breach of an administrative direction.
21. This so-called privilege granted to administrative bodies to formulate quintessential or circumstantially relevant notions or instructions is not absolute. It is a well channelled privilege to be used in the right way at circumstances for a right cause, should be compatible and in accord with the said limitations. Let us now consider the situations under which a direction can be rendered invalid or void. Like any other rule or law or principle, an administrative direction will be held void if it is against this principle of Natural Justice, the said principle being the heart and soul or bedrock of administrative law, no direction can survive if it tries to override the principles of natural justice. That direction should be in accordance with the established principles and laws, and should be reasonable and relevant, a direction should not be the fruit of unreasonable, ulterior discretion of concerned authorities, if so, such a direction will be held invalid.
22. As discussed previously, a direction should not be inconsistent with other existing rules or laws. In legal hierarchy, directions occupy a place subordinate to other statues, or rules, and it is settled in the case of "State of Sikkim v Dorjee 9 1999(3)SLR372 10 AIR 1959 SC 896 14 Tshering Bhutia11", that any order, instruction, direction, or notification issued in exercise of the executive power of the state which is contrary to any statutory provisions, is without jurisdiction and is a nullity.
23. A direction should not encroach into or adversely affect individual rights. Any restriction prejudicial to individual interest can be placed only by law, cannot be done through administrative directions. In the case of "District Collector, Chittoor v Chittoor Groundnut Traders Association12", the State Government issued a circular to its officer not to permit transport of groundnut seeds and oil outside the state by millers and traders unless they agreed to supply certain quantities of these products to the state at the price fixed by it. The circular thus placed restrictions on the right of traders. Supreme Court quashed the circular as illegal and void as the state government had no power to impose such restriction.
24. Similarly, a direction can stand only if it in congruence with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Equality is one of the imperative element of a democracy, any kind of divergence from this principle will result in arbitrariness and definitely steer down the essence of democracy. Therefore, administrative directions will be held invalid if it violated Article 14. In the case of "S.L.Sachdev v Union of India13", an administrative direction regarding the promotion of the upper division clerks to higher grades was quashed as it was unreasonable, arbitrary, illogical and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
25. Thus, from the law laid down by the other High Courts 11 AIR 1991 SC 1933 12 AIR 1989 SC 989 13 AIR 1981 SC 411 15 and the Apex Court in the judgments (referred supra), the administrative or executive instructions shall not be inconsistent with the statutory rules or provisions and not in violation of principles of natural justice or outcome of arbitrary power.
26. It is settled legal proposition that executive instructions cannot override the statutory provisions (Vide: "B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore14" "Union of India v. Majji Jangammyya15"
"State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar16")
27. Executive instructions cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules or add something therein, nor the orders be issued in contravention of the statutory rules for the reason that an administrative instruction is not a statutory Rule nor does it have any force of law; while statutory rules have full force of law provided the same are not in conflict with the provisions of the Act. (Vide: "State of U. P. and Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhyaya17"
and "State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone18").
28. In "Union of India v. Sri Somasundaram Vishwanath19", the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that if there is a conflict between the executive instruction and the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Rules will prevail. Similarly, if there is a conflict in the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and the law, the law will prevail.
29. Similar view has been reiterated in "Union of India v. 14 (1967)ILLJ698SC 15 [1977]2SCR28 16 AIR 1989 SC 1133 17 1961CriLJ773 18 [1981]2SCR742 19 AIR 1988 SC 2255 16 Rakesh Kumar20" "Swapan Kumar Pal and Ors. v.
Samitabhar Chakraborty21" observing that statutory rules create enforceable rights which cannot be taken away by issuing executive instructions.
30. In "Ram Ganesh Tripathi v. State of U.P.22", the Apex Court considered a similar controversy and held that any executive instruction/order which runs counter to or is inconsistent with the statutory rules cannot be enforced, rather deserves to be quashed as having no force of law. The Apex Court observed as under :-
"They (respondents) relied upon the order passed by the State. This order also deserves to be quashed as it is not consistent with the statutory rules. It appears to have been passed by the Government to oblique the respondents and similarly situated ad hoc appointees."
31. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that executive instructions cannot be issued in contravention of the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and statutory rules cannot be set at naught by the executive fiat.
32. In "Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala23", the Apex Court held that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes under the provisions of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have statutory force and any other instruction/circular not issued under the said provision, will not be of any assistance to anybody as the same would not have statutory force.
33. In view of the law declared in the above judgments by 20 [2001]2SCR927 21 [2001]3SCR641 22 AIR1997SC1446 23 [2001]252ITR1(SC) 17 Hon'ble Apex Court and followed by Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Vijay's case referred supra executive/ administrative instructions issued while exercising power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India will not prevail or override the statutory rules framed by exercising power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore in the absence of any lacuna or gap in the statutory rules regarding appointment of Lecturer in the college by direct recruitment and these executive instructions vide Lr.No.APSCHE/ums-1035/Clarification-equiv-Qualifications/ 2018, dated 03.07.201 is illegal and contrary to the rules.
34. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ravi Kondaveeti contended that when statutory rules can be enforced and issuing executive instructions are contrary to the statutory rules, such executive instructions are invalid and will not prevail or override the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of Constitution of India.
35. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal v Alok Sharma (supra 1), in para -15 and 22, it was held that :
"15. The relationship between the respondents herein and the said Government companies was that of employee and employer. The companies under liquidation although were incorporated and registered under the Companies Act 1956, they are "State", within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution fo India. As "State", therefore, they were bound to comply with the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; in terms whereof cases of all the eligible candidates for appointment were required to be considered. Recruitment in government service must be carried out in terms of the rules framed under a statute or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.18
Further the court observed by relying in State of Karnataka v Umadevi reported in 2006 (8) SCC 671, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that :
22. Keeping in view the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Umadevi (3)1 there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that any condition laid down in any rules which is in derogation of the recruitment rules framed by the State, should receive strict construction."
36. In another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashih kumar's case (supra 2), in para-27, held that :
"27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in statutory rules, the appellant fulfils the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is made in the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v U.P Public Service Commission (2006) 9 SCC 507, in para-21 of the judgment lays down the above proposition which is to the following effect.
"21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 01.7.2001 and 1.7.2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on the basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules."
37. Finally in Punjab State Warehousing Corporation's case (supra 3), in para-12, it was held that :
19
"12. Furthermore, when the terms and conditions of the services of an employee are governed by the rules made under a statute or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India laying down the mode and manner in which the recruitment would be given effect to, even no order under Article 162 of the Constitution of India can be made by way of alterations or amendments of the said rules. A fortiori if the recruitment rules could not be amended even by issuing a notification under Article 162 of the Constitution of India the same cannot be done by way of a circular letter."
38. In view of the above proposition of law consistently laid down in the above judgments, made it clear abundantly the statutory rules issued under Article 309 of the constitution of India cannot be changed by issuing either circular or administrative/executive instructions exercising power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Apart from that, though there is a condition in the advertisement, based on executive instructions vide Lr.No.APSCHE/ums-1035/Clarification-equiv- Qualifications/2018, dated 03.07.2018, such condition will not prevail or override the statutory rule contained G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (C.E.I.1) Department, dated 14.05.2007. Therefore, incorporation of such condition that, "he must possess qualification in the relevant subject at the under graduate level"
issued by circular, is invalid and contrary to the Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (C.E.I.1) Department, dated 14.05.2007.
39. Learned Standing Counsel for APPSC Sri Rama Chandra Murthy mainly contended that when the petitioners participated in the process of selection appearing for the examination, they are not 20 entitled to question the clause contained in the advertisement as they waived such right and cannot raise such objection.
40. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors24, wherein it was held that when a candidate, who consciously takes part in the process of selection, he subsequently can turn around and question the very method of selection process. Moreover, even on merits, the condition that the selection process be based on regulations was not correct. Academic Authorities about the suitability of a candidate to be appointed as Associate Professor in a research institute cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the fact that the candidates so selected possessed all requisite qualifications and experience and, therefore, their appointment cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of qualification and experience.
41. Similarly the issue came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in another judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Surender Singh and others25.
42. In another judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh versus Vijay Kumar Misra26 , wherein , in para-6, it was held as follows:
"6. The position is fairly well settled that when a set of eligibility qualifications are prescribed under the rules and an applicant who does not possess the prescribed qualification for the post at the time of submission of application or by the cut off date, if any, described under the rules or stated in the advertisement, is not eligible to be considered for such post. It is relevant to note here that in the rules or in the advertisement no power was vested in 24 2016 (1) SCC 454 25 (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 67 26 (2017) 11 Supreme Court Cases 521 21 any authority to make any relaxation relating to the prescribed qualifications for the post. Therefore, the case of a candidate who did not come within the zone of consideration for the post could not be compared with a candidate who possess the prescribed qualifications and was considered and appointed to the post.
Therefore, the so-called confession made by the officer in the Court that persons haying lower merit than the respondent have been appointed as SDI (Basic), having been based on misconception is wholly irrelevant. The learned single Judge clearly erred in relying on such a statement for issuing the direction for appointment of the respondent. The Division Bench was equally in error in confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge. Thus the judgment of the learned single Judge as confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable and has to be set aside."
43. Law laid down by the Apex Court regarding the right to question the validity of notification having participated in the selection process, appearance for the examination is not in controversy.
44. But in the present case, the petitioners appeared for the examination as part of selection process and when they were called for interview and on verification of the certificates they were found not eligible for their failure to possess the degree in the relevant subject in under graduate level in view of Lr.No.APSCHE/ums- 1035/Clarification-equiv-Qualifications/2018, dated 03.07.2018. But that was not the requirement as per G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (C.E.I.1) Department, dated 14.05.2007, which was issued by exercising power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
45. As discussed above, when the advertisement itself is irregular, illegal or contrary to the statutory rules, mere participation in the selection process appearing for the 22 examination will not deprive the petitioners to raise such objection when they were not allowed to participate in the process of selection for the interview. If such principle is accepted the same would apply to the 2nd respondent also, because the 2nd respondent allowed the petitioners to appear for the examination in the selection process.
46. Therefore the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for APPSC would not stand to any legal scrutiny and the same is hereby rejected.
47. Learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the 2nd respondent, while supporting the case of these petitioners, placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Ananad Yadav case (supra 4), wherein it was held in para-13 and 14, as follows:
"13. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the impugned order dated 14.5.2018, opined after looking at the judgment in the Dr Prit Singh (supra) case the issue was no more res integra. That is , while M.A. (Education) is a Master's degree in the subject concerned, M.Ed., is not so, as it is only a training qualification. The conclusion reached was that an M.Ed., qualified person could not be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Education, and consequently the corrigendum dated 11.7.2016 was quashed.
14. respondent No.2 in compliance with the aforesaid decision, in its meeting held on 05.09.2018 decided to change the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor in Education so as to only treat candidates with M.A Education) as eligible for the said post."
48. In another judgment in Maharashtra's case (supra 6), wherein the Apex Court held in para-10 and 11 as follows: 23
10. The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility; much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive rewriting of the advertisement. Questions of equivalence will also fall outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same.
If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to any rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with law. In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
11. The fact that an expert committee may have been constituted and which examined the documents before calling the candidates for interview cannot operate as an estoppel against the clear terms of the advertisement to render an ineligible candidate eligible for appointment. According to the principle laid down in the above judgment it is clear that if there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary to the rules or law the matter has to go back to the appointing authority after appropriate orders."
49. In the present case, the incorporation of condition of possessing a degree in the relevant field by Lr.No.APSCHE/ums- 1035/Clarification-equiv-Qualifications/2018, dated 03.07.2018 is against the statutory rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (C.E.I.1) Department, dated 14.05.2007 issued by exercising power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the advertisement fixing qualification at the graduate level in the relevant subject is contrary to the statutory rules. In such case, the Court can interfere with such process and denial of 24 an opportunity to participate in the interview to these petitioners can be held to be illegal. In the same judgment, the Court at the end held that the Court cannot interpret the terms of the advertisement. But here, it is not question of interpretation of terms of advertisement, it is only an illegality committed by the respondents in incorporating such condition contrary to the statutory rules.
50. In another judgment the apex Court in Dr Thingujam (supra 7) expressed its view candidly that "At the outset, it is to be noticed that though, in none of the writ petitions, rules governing appointment to the post of Director was under challenge, the High Court has gone into the validity of the Rules, as amended, and held that amendments to the Rules were not carried out by following the Rules, Regulations and Bye-Laws of the Society. The specific plea of the respondent authorities in the writ petitions, that there is no challenge to validity of the rules but same has been brushed aside by the High Court by merely stating that such an objection is of technical in nature. At this stage, it is relevant to note that such objection raised should not have been brushed aside by the High Court by holding that such objection is of a technical nature. In all these writ petitions in which common order is passed by the High Court, validity of advertisement dated 16.08.2016 alone was under challenge. We are of the view that the High Court has committed, an error in going into the validity of the Rules, in absence of any challenge to the same. In any event, it was the case of the respondent authorities that the rules governing appointment were amended 25 by following the rules and such amendment was also C.A.@ S.L.P.(C)Nos.15093-15095 of 2017 etc. approved by the competent authority, of Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Further, the fact of not notifying the amended rules has also been made basis for grant of relief by the High Court. In this regard, the High Court has held that not notifying the amended rules would strike at the root of the amendment process of the recruitment rules, as such, unless such rules are notified, the same cannot be enforced. It appears from the impugned order itself that it was the specific plea in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court that the said rules were not framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and further there is no specific provision in the Rules, Regulations and Bye-Laws of RIMS for notifying the same. It is true that in a public institution, rules are required to be made available, but at the same time not notifying to public at large cannot be the ground to invalidate the notification, in the absence of any provision to that effect in the Bye-Laws of the Society or the Rules and Regulations framed for recruitment to the post of Director.
The High Court has also noticed that the experience for eligibility notified in the advertisement dated 16.08.2016 was not in conformity with the Medical Council of India Regulations. In reply affidavit filed before the High Court, while denying such allegation, it was pleaded that the qualifications and experience, as notified in the advertisement dated 16.08.2016, was in accordance with the "Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998" (as amended from time to time), framed by the Medical Council of 26 India. It was the specific contention of the respondent authorities that as the RIMS is affiliated to C.A. @S.L.P. (C) Nos.15093-15095 of 2017 etc. Manipur University, the requirement as prescribed by Medical Council of India for Director of affiliated hospital should be applied. Such plea is not accepted by the High Court on the ground that there is no proper pleading in this regard. A copy of the Regulations titled as, "Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998" (as amended upto 11th March 2017) issued by the Medical Council of India is placed before us. As notified in the said Regulations, the academic qualifications and experience applicable for the post of Director of medical institutions differ from those applicable for the post of Director/Medical Superintendent of affiliated teaching hospital. For the post of Director in a medical institution, apart from the academic qualifications, ten years' experience as Professor/Associate Professor/Reader in a medical college, out of which at least five years should be as Professor in a department, is prescribed. However, for the post of Director/Medical Superintendent of the affiliated teaching hospital the required experience is ten years only. It is the specific case of the respondents that the RIMS is an affiliated teaching hospital. In view of such stand of the respondents it cannot be said that the experience for eligibility notified in the advertisement dated 16.08.2016 is contrary to the Regulations of Medical Council of India. So far as relaxation of upper age limit, as sought by the petitioners in one of the writ petitions is concerned, High Court has directed the competent authority 27 and Executive Council of the Society to consider for providing such relaxation clause. We fail to understand as to how such direction can be C.A.@ S.L.P.(C)Nos.15093-15095 of 2017 etc. given by the High Court for providing a relaxation which is not notified in the advertisement. While it is open for the employer to notify such criteria for relaxation when sufficient candidates are not available, at the same time nobody can claim such relaxation as a matter of right. The eligibility criteria will be within the domain of the employer and no candidate can seek as a matter of right, to provide relaxation clause.
For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned common judgment and order dated 27.03.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.676 of 2016; W.P.(C)No.722 of 2016; and W.P.(C)No.766 of 2016 by the High Court of Manipur at Imphal. Consequently, the above said writ petitions stand dismissed.
These civil appeals are filed by the Union of India and RIMS challenging the very same order of the High Court by which the advertisement dated 16.08.2016 has been quashed. For the reasons recorded while dealing with the appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C)Nos.15093-15095 of 2017, these appeals also stand allowed and the abovementioned impugned order of the High Court is set aside."
51. In another judgment of Apex Court in District Collector case (supra 5) wherein in para-3, it was held that : 28
3. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners would urge that keeping in view the fact that a particular qualification was notified as minimum qualification, the respondent herein cannot be said to have fulfilled the criteria laid down in the recruitment notification. We are afraid, having regard to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. The State is considered to be a model employer, as has been held by the apex Court in H.D.Singh v. Reserve Bank of India. It is really curious that the State has taken such an unreasonable stand. Person having a better qualification cannot be denied appointment on the ground that the minimum qualification required is something else. Prescription of a minimum qualification is necessary so that all candidates must hold atleast that qualification. But the same does not mean that a person with a higher qualification would not meet the requirement. In Y.Srinivasa Rao v. J. Veeraiah. the Apex Court, while dealing with a case of allotment of Fair-Price Shop, held that preference to an uneducated man over an educated man would amount to allowing premium of ignorance, incompetence and consequent inefficiency. The Apex Court observed that the same would amount to gross arbitrariness resulting in illegal discrimination. Yet again, in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani v. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, 2000 SCC (L&S) 305, the Apex Court clearly held that:
"A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not been able to appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to SSC Examination could also not be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application.
We do not think, therefore, that criterion four as laid by the Advisory Committee constituted under the Rules and upheld by the High Court is in any way reasonable or rational. By adopting such a course the High Court has put its stamp of approval to another type of reservation for recruitment to the service which is not permissible. A poor person can certainly acquire qualification equivalent to SSC Examination and not that he cannot go beyond 29 Standard VII. Perhaps by restricting appointment to a candidate having studied only upto Standard VII the High Court may not be encouraging dropouts."
52. Even if these principles are applied to the present facts of the case when the rules specifically prescribing a specific qualification and insisting these petitioners to possess degree in relevant subject at the under graduate level by executive/administrative institutions exercising power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India adding additional qualification which is not prescribed in the rules, is a serious illegality.
53. Similar issue was decided by the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ananad Yadav Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (supra 4), wherein the same principles were reiterated. Therefore the condition imposed by 2nd respondent in Annexure-III of the advertisement inviting applications based on the Lr.No.APSCHE/ums-1035/Clarification-equiv-Qualifications/ 2018, dated 03.07.2018 is contrary to the rules and it is nothing but prescribing additional qualification to the qualification prescribed under the rules and thereby the said condition prescribed is illegal and contrary to law. Hence, the condition prescribing a qualification i.e., possessing degree in the relevant subject in under graduate level is hereby quashed.
54. In view of my foregoing discussion and when this Court quashed the condition imposed in pursuance of the letter in Lr.No.APSCHE/ums-1035/Clarification-equiv-Qualifications/2018, dated 03.07.2018, the petitioners became eligible to appear for interview for the post of Lecturer in Political Science, as the action 30 of the respondents is arbitrary and contrary to the rules vide G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (C.E.I.1) Department, dated 14.05.2007 .
55. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 as illegal, contrary and violative of G.O.Ms.No.47, Higher Education (C.E.I.1) Department, dated 14.05.2007 issued in exercising the power under Article 309 of Constitution of India prescribing eligibility for being appointed for the post of lecturers in degree colleges while setting aside the condition referred to above and directing the 2nd respondent to permit these petitioners for the interview for the post of Lecturers in the relevant subject and complete the process, in accordance with law, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date : 25-02-2021 Note: L.R copy to be marked.
(b/o) Gvl 31 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.4259 OF 2021 Date : 25.02.2021 Gvl