WP/19177/2002 of T.AJAY KUMAR Vs THE SE ONPDC OF AP LTD N.BAD AND 2 OTHERS on 28 December 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

WRIT PETITION No. 19177 of 2002

DATED: 28.12.2006

Between:

T.Ajay Kumar. …

petitioner

And

The Superintending Engineer, OperationNorthern Power Distribution Company ofAndhra Pradesh Limited, Nizamabad and ors. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANAWRIT PETITION No.19177 of 2002

Common order:

The petitioner claims to have worked with therespondents-APSEB as contract labour. It is his case thatthe respondents-APSEB having considered his case forabsorption/selection in the light of B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated18.05.1997, rejected his candidature on the ground that hedid not possess the requisite qualifications to hold thepost. Assailing the said action of the respondents, thepetitioner filed the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat even though the petitioner did not possess theeducational qualifications as on the date of his initialattachment, the fact remains he acquired the requisitequalifications subsequently, namely as on the date ofconsideration of his case in the light of B.P. Ms. No. 36,dated 18.05.1997, and as such, the action of therespondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitionerfor absorption/selection in the post in which he worked ascontract labour, is illegal and arbitrary.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondentssubmitted that in B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-05-1997 hadspecifically mentioned that the educational qualificationsrequired for various posts for absorption/selection ofcontract labourers shall be as prescribed in the Board’s Service Regulations, which were in force on the date oftheir initial engagement, and no relaxation of educationalqualifications or other technical qualifications shall begiven.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

To consider whether the petitioner is entitled forrelaxation of educational qualification, it is appropriate torefer to Condition No.5 (b) of B.P. Ms. 36, dated 18/05.1887,which prescribes the educational qualifications. The saidCondition No. 5(b) reads:

Educational Qualifcations: Educational Qualifications shall be as perBoard’s Service Regulations in force at the time of their first engagement. There shall be no relaxation of educational qualifications or other relevanttechnical qualifications which are prescribed in the Service Regulations forsuch appointment.

From a reading of the above, it is clear that thecandidate should possess the educational qualifications asprescribed in the Board’s Service Regulations, which werein force at the time of his initial engagement, and norelaxation of educational or other relevant technicalqualifications, prescribed in the Board’s ServiceRegulations, shall be given.

Though as per the Board’s Service Regulations evenan under-graduate was entitled to be appointed as LDC, thefact remains, the respondents by issuing B.P.Ms.No.236,dated 03-08-1993, amended the relevant Service Regulation, tothe effect that to hold the post of L.D.C. the candidateshould compulsorily be a graduate, must have knowledge oftypewriting and possess lower Grade Typewriting Certificate, issued by the State Board of TechnicalEducation. The petitioner who claims that he is entitled tobe appointed as L.D.C., admittedly, did not possesstypewriting qualifications as on the date of his initialengagement.

Since it is the admitted case of the petitioner that hedid not possess the requisite qualification as on the date ofhis initial engagement and that he acquired the requisitequalifications subsequent to his initial engagement, havingregard to Condition No.5(b) of B.P. Ms. No.36, dated18.05.1997, which states that no relaxation in educationalor other relevant technical qualifications can be given, noexception can be taken to the action of the respondents inrejecting the case of the petitioner for absorption/selectionin the posts in which they worked with the contractors. Inthis context it would be appropriate to refer to thejudgment of the apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3215 of 2002and batch, dated 18.04.2002, wherein the apex Courthaving considered the question of grant of relaxation ofprescribed qualifications, answered the same in thenegative, holding as follows:

“In our view, in the petitions before the HighCourt there was no question of considering publicpolicy and the discussion on the law was totallybesides the point involved in the matter. Limited issuewas – whether before regularization of service ofemployees, the Board was bound to follow theeligibility conditions laid down in its proceedings dated18.05.1997 and 31.12.1997. Benefit of regularizationwhich was conferred on the employees solelydepended upon eligibility of conditions including theage limit prescribed under the statutory regulations. The statutory regulations provide that there shall beno relaxation of age. In cases, where the Board hascommitted mistake in engaging under-age casualemployees or has permitted the contractor to do so would not confer any right on such employees forbeing regularized on the basis of BPMS dated18.05.1997.

In this view of the matter, the judgmentrendered by the High Court cannot be sustained andis, therefore, set aside.

However, considering the fact that therespondents/casual employees/employees of thecontractor/junior linemen are in service for more than15 years, we do not think that this would be a fit casefor disturbing their appointments made in pursuance ofthe order passed by the High Court.

Ordered accordingly. Appeals stand disposed of.”

When the Board Service Regulations prescribes aparticular qualification, the candidate seekingabsorption/selection should possess such qualification, andthis Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India cannot relax the prescribedqualifications, if done it would amount to rewriting theservice conditions.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordinglydismissed. No costs.

__________________

N.V.RAMANA, J.

DATE: 28.12.2006GRK/TVK

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

WRIT PETITION No.19177 of 2002DATED: 28-12-2006