WP/2415/2004 of M.D. Harifuddin, S/o. Hasanuddi, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director, on 28 December 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

WRIT PETITION NOs. 21442, 21444 and 25148 of 2002and 2415 of 2004

DATED: 28.12.2006

Between:

W.P.No.21442 of 2002

Madhuri Indira Rani.…petitioner

And

A.P. TRANSCO

Rep by its General Manager (IR),

Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and Ors. …Respondents W.P.No.21444 of 2002

A. Raghu.…Petitioner

And

A.P. TRANSCO

Rep by its General Manager (IR),

Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and Ors. …Respondents W.P.No.25148 of 2002

D.Gopal Reddy & ors…Petitioners

And

Chairman and Managing Director,

A.P. TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha,

Hyderabad and Ors. …Respondents

W.P.No.2415 of 2004

M.D.Harifuddin.…Petitioner

And

Chairman and Managing Director,

A.P. TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha,

Khairatabad, Hyderabad and Ors. …Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA

WRIT PETITION NOs. 21442, 21444 and 25148 of 2002

and 2415 of 2004

Common order:

The petitioners claim to have worked with the respondents-APSEB as contractlabour. It is their case that the respondents-APSEB having considered their case forabsorption/selection in the light of B.P. Ms. No. 36, dated 18.05.1997, rejected theircandidature on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualifications tohold the post. Assailing the said action of the respondents, the petitioners filed thepresent writ petitions.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though the petitionersdid not possess the educational qualifications as on the date of their initialattachment, the fact remains they acquired the requisite qualifications subsequently,namely as on the date of consideration of their cases in the light of B.P. Ms. No. 36,dated 18.05.1997, and as such, the action of the respondents in rejecting thecandidature of the petitioners for absorption/selection in the post in which theyworked as contract labour, is illegal and arbitrary.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that in B.P.Ms.No.36,dated 18-05-1997 had specifically mentioned that the educational qualificationsrequired for various posts for absorption/selection of contract labourers shall be asprescribed in the Board’s Service Regulations, which were in force on the date oftheir initial engagement, and no relaxation of educational qualifications or othertechnical qualifications shall be given.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel forthe respondents.

To consider whether the petitioners are entitled for relaxation of educationalqualification, it is appropriate to refer to Condition No.5 (b) of B.P. Ms. 36, dated18/05.1887, which prescribes the educational qualifications. The said Condition No.5(b) reads:

Educational Qualifications: Educational Qualifications shall be as per Board’s Service Regulations inforce at the time of their first engagement. There shall be no relaxation of educational qualifications or other relevant technical qualifications which are prescribed in the Service Regulations for suchappointment.

From a reading of the above, it is clear that the candidates should possess theeducational qualifications as prescribed in the Board’s Service Regulations, whichwere in force at the time of their initial engagement, and no relaxation of educationalor other relevant technical qualifications, prescribed in the Board’s ServiceRegulations, shall be given.

Though as per the Board’s Service Regulations even an under-graduate wasentitled to be appointed as LDC, the fact remains, the respondents by issuingB.P.Ms.No.236, dated

03-08-1993, amended the relevant Service Regulation, to the effect that to hold thepost of L.D.C. the candidate should compulsorily be a graduate, must haveknowledge of typewriting and possess lower Grade Typewriting Certificate, issuedby the State Board of Technical Education. Some of the petitioners, who claim thatthey are entitled to be appointed as L.D.C., admittedly, did not possess the requisitequalifications, in that, they were either under-graduates or did not possess thetypewriting qualifications as on the date of their initial engagement.

Since it is the admitted case of the petitioners that they did not possess therequisite qualification as on the date of their initial engagement and that theyacquired the requisite qualifications subsequent to their initial engagement, havingregard to Condition No.5(b) of B.P. Ms. No.36, dated 18.05.1997, which states thatno relaxation in educational or other relevant technical qualifications can be given,no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in rejecting the cases ofthe petitioners for absorption/selection in the posts in which they worked with thecontractors. In this context it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of theapex Court in Civil Appeal No.3215 of 2002 and batch, dated 18.04.2002, whereinthe apex Court having considered the question of grant of relaxation of prescribedqualifications, answered the same in the negative, holding as follows:

“In our view, in the petitions before the High Court there was no question ofconsidering public policy and the discussion on the law was totally besidesthe point involved in the matter. Limited issue was – whether beforeregularization of service of employees, the Board was bound to follow theeligibility conditions laid down in its proceedings dated 18.05.1997 and31.12.1997. Benefit of regularization which was conferred on the employeessolely depended upon eligibility of conditions including the age limitprescribed under the statutory regulations. The statutory regulations providethat there shall be no relaxation of age. In cases, where the Board hascommitted mistake in engaging under-age casual employees or haspermitted the contractor to do so would not confer any right on suchemployees for being regularized on the basis of BPMS dated 18.05.1997.

In this view of the matter, the judgment rendered by the High Court cannot besustained and is, therefore, set aside.

However, considering the fact that the respondents/casualemployees/employees of the contractor/junior linemen are in service formore than 15 years, we do not think that this would be a fit case fordisturbing their appointments made in pursuance of the order passed by theHigh Court.

Ordered accordingly. Appeals stand disposed of.”

When the Board Service Regulations prescribes a particular qualification, thecandidates seeking absorption/selection should possess such qualification, and thisCourt in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiacannot relax the prescribed qualifications, if done it would amount to rewriting theservice conditions.

The writ petitions are devoid of merit and they are accordingly dismissed. Nocosts.

__________________

N.V.RAMANA, J.

DATE: 28.12.2006

GRK/TVK

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

WRIT PETITION NOs. 21442, 21444 and 25148 of 2002and 2415 of 2004