STATE OF AP Vs. Y VENKATA RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the State represented by the Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation Department, Hyderabad and other officers against the order dated 24-7-2009 passed in OA No. 5143 of 2009 with VMA No. 905 of 2009 by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

(2.) The facts stated are:- the applicant-1st respondent herein pursuant to the notification issued on 7-2-2009, by the District Collector, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District, to fill-up the posts of Agricultural Extension Officers, applied to the said post. The qualifications prescribed for the said post was diploma in agriculture polytechnic. But as the applicant was a holder of diploma in agriculture (seed technology), the authorities-petitioners herein entertained a doubt as to whether diploma in agriculture polytechnic is equivalent to diploma in agriculture (seed technology). To clarify this position, the applicant approached Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad-2nd respondent herein, by way of representation to clarify the position. The degree in diploma in agriculture (seed technology) is being offered by the said University, the 2nd respondent-University recommended the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad-2nd petitioner herein to consider the diploma holders in seed technology as equivalent to diploma in agriculture, for recruitment to the posts of Agricultural Extension Officer (Grade-II) in the districts along with the diploma holders in agriculture. It is stated that the District Collector-3rd petitioner herein being the Chairman of the Selection Committee, having selected the applicant issued orders dated 2-3-2009 appointing the applicant as AEO (Grade-II), directed him to report to Assistant Director of Agriculture (R), Atmakur, Nellore District and accordingly the applicant joined duty. Thereafter, it is stated that the applicant was issued with notice dated 18-3-2009/19-3-2009 calling for his explanation as to why he should not be terminated from service for not possessing the required qualification for the post in which he was appointed. It is stated that the said notice was replied to by the applicant, but without considering reply in the proper perspective, the 4th petitioner, on the instructions of petitioners 2 and 3 passed orders dated 25-3-2009 cancelling the appointment and posting orders dated 2-3-2009. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed the instant OA before the Tribunal.

(3.) The Tribunal, on the consideration of the matter, by the impugned order set aside the order dated 25-3-2009 cancelling the appointment and posting orders dated 2-3-2009 and directed the petitioners herein to re-instate and re-appoint the applicant as AEO (Grade-II) in the light of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent-University. Assailing the said order, the State filed this writ petition.