B KRISHNA RAO Vs. M WILLIAM CAREY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed against the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 8393 of 2000 on 17-11-2003. 4th respondent before the Tribunal is the writ petitioner herein and the applicant before the Tribunal is 1st respondent in this writ petition.

(2.) The 1st respondent challenged the promotion of the writ petitioner as Head of Section, Pharmacy vide G.O.Rt.No.669, dt. 20-9-2000 on the ground that it was illegal, ar6itrary and contrary to the Education Regulations, 1991 framed under Pharmacy Act, 1948. The 1st respondent contended that he possesses Master of Pharmacy and was appointed as an Associate Lecturer which was later redesignated as Lecturer. He was now working as a Lecturer in Pharmacy, SGPR Government Polytechnic College, Kurnool. For promotion to the post of Head of Section in Polytechnic, a candidate should possess a degree in the respective branch as per the rules framed in G.O.Ms.No.1146, GAD, dated 13-9-1961. Thereafter, by G.O.Ms.No.1845, dt. 29-7-1966, the Government framed ad hoc rules for filling up the post of Head of Section and Lecturer in Pharmacy. These rules were made applicable to the pharmacy courses also. On the other hand, the writ petitioner had a Diploma in Pharmacy. He acquired BS and MS (Pharmacy Operations) from BITS Pilani which was not considered as equivalent to B. Pharmacy/ M. Pharmacy for promotion to the post of Head of Section in Pharmacy Department by the Government. The writ petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.5618 of 1996. The O.A. was disposed of by the Tribunal directing the Government to consider the claim of the writ petitioner. In the meantime the Pharmacy Council of India vide its letter dt. 28-4-1997 made it clear that BS/MS (Pharmacy Operations)/MS degrees of BITs, Pilani were not equivalent to B. Pharm/M. Pharm degree for appointment as teaching staff under the Education Regulations, 1991. On 9-11-1998 the Pharmacy Council of India also informed that BS or MS conducted by BITS, Pilani was not approved as a degree. Therefore the case of the 1st respondent was that since the writ petitioner did not have the basic qualifications which would make him eligible for the post of Head of Section, his appointment was bad.

(3.) Now the question which falls for determination is whether the writ petitioner was eligible to be appointed as Head of Section or not. The Tribunal agreed with the 1st respondent, quashed the appointment of the writ petitioner who has filed this writ petition. It is not disputed that the writ petitioner has acquired BS and MS (Pharmacy Operations) through distance education system. It is also not disputed that BITS, Pilani is not a recognized institute for the purpose of granting BS and MS (Pharmacy Operations). It is also not disputed that BS and MS (Pharmacy Operations) which the writ petitioner has obtained from BITS, Pilani have not been recognized by Pharmacy Council of India as degrees equivalent to B. Pharm/M. Pharm which are required to make a candidate eligible for the post of Head of Section in Pharmacy. In this factual background, the relevant provisions of law will have to be examined, but before going to that, it may be stated that the writ petitioner has challenged the order of the Tribunal mainly on three grounds,