T LAKSHMINARAYANA Vs. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES DEPARTMENT GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to challenge, by this writ petition, the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.6681 of 1999 dated 05.05.2000.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are follows: (a) The petitioner was appointed as Typist in 1965 and later promoted as Junior Inspector in 1973 and later as Development Officer in 1990. As he fulfilled the requisite qualification as prescribed under G.O.Ms. No.399 Industries and Commerce (HL) Department dated 23.09.1985 and described as Andhra Pradesh State Handlooms and Textiles Services Rules, he was eligible to be considered for the post of Assistant Director. The relevant Rule 3 dealing with qualifications for the said post is as follows: 3. Qualifications: No person shall be eligible for appointment to the category specified in column (2) of the Table below by the method specified in column (3) unless he possesses the qualifications specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) thereof: - Sl.No. Category Method of recruitment Qualification 1. Sl.No. Category Method of recruitment Qualification 2. 3. Asst. Director 1) By transfer from the category of Development Officer (H & T) in the Andhra Pradesh State Handlooms & Textiles, Subordinate Service i) Shall ordinarily put in a service of three years but in no case shall it be less than two years in the category of Development Officer. (b) Accordingly, the name of the petitioner was included in the panel for the year 1994-95. He was accordingly promoted to the said post of Assistant Director on 30.12.1995. While so, under a show cause . notice dated 06.08.1999 the first respondent called upon the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be reverted from the post of Assistant Director to the post of Development Officer for not passing the Accounts test for the Executive Officers prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.l Industries & Commerce (HL) Department dated 02.01.1995. The aforesaid G.O.Ms.No.l dated 02.01.1995 is the Andhra Pradesh Handlooms and Textiles Services Special Rules, which were issued in suprecession of the earlier rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.399 dated 23.09.1985. The petitioner has sent replies dated 31.08.1999 and 05.09.1999 justifying his promotion and claiming that he having crossed 45 years of age, he is entitled to the benefit of exemption under G.O.Ms.No.165 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 22.04.1997. The said representation, however, was rejected by orders of the first respondent and proceedings bearing Rc.No.8293/95-E2 dated 05.11.1999 were issued reverting the petitioner to the post of Development Officer. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present O.A.No.6681 of 1999. (c) The respondent herein filed a counter, inter alia, contending that firstly, the promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Director on the basis of the meeting of the DPC dated 16.09.1994, which recommended the panel of Development Officers for promotion by transfer as Assistant Directors. However, the said panel was approved only on 07.02.1995 vide orders of the Government in G.O.Rt.No.103 Industries and Commerce (HL.1) Department dated 07.02.1995. However, by then the new Special Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.l dated 02.01.1995 had come into force. Under the new rules, the eligibility and qualifications required to hold the said post on transfer was as follows: 6. Qualifications: No person shall be eligible for appointment to the category specified in column (1) in the Table below by the method specified in column (2) unless he possesses the qualifications specified in the corresponding entry in column (3). Category 3. Deputy Directors TABLE Method of appointment Qualification Category 4. Asst. Directors Method of appointment i) By Direct recruitment ii) By promotion or by transfer. NO Qualification Must possess: a) A Degree in Textile Technology OR b) A Bachelor's Degree of University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act or Institution recognized by the University Grants Commission, or any equivalent qualification. Must have passed: a) the examinations in Cooperation, Auditing, Banking and Book keeping conducted by the Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Institute or the Cooperative Training Institute run by the National Cooperative Union, or the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Union. b) Accounts Test for Executive Officers OR Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers, Parts I & III NOTE: In the case of the incumbent holding the post of Section Officer (Textiles) on the issue of these rules, the requirement of that he must have passed Accounts Test for Executive Officers or Accounts Tesl for Subordinate Officers Parts I & II, before he is promoted shall not apply but he shall pass the said test after promotion as Assistant Director within the period of probation. The respondents further stated that as the petitioner had not passed the Accounts test for Executive Officers or the Accounts Test for Subordinate Officer Part I & II and though the DPC recommended his case for promotion prior to the coming into force of the new rules, the Government by its memo No.79/HL-l/94/8 dated 27.03.1995 exercised powers under Rule 17 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules') and permitted the Commissioner for Handlooms to promote the Development Officers, who are in the approved panel as per G.O.Ms. No.103 dated 07.02.1995 referred to above subject to the condition that they should pass the test within the period of probation failing which they will be liable for reversion as Development Officers. (d) Based on the above, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director conditionally by making it clear that he should pass the Accounts test within the period of probation failing which he will be liable for reversion. The respondents, further, state that the petitioner did not pass the requisite test but claimed exemption under G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 22.04.1997 on the ground that he has crossed 45 years of age. Since the petitioner had not passed the test, he was issued a show cause notice dated 06.08.1998 and after considering the explanation of the petitioner dated 31.08.1999 and 05.09.1999, the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the panel list was approved after new rules had come into force wherein passing of the Accounts test is mandatory for considering the case for aforesaid promotion to the post of Assistant Director. The petitioner having not fulfilled the conditions under his conditional promotion, therefore, he was reverted with immediate effect. It was also claimed by the respondents that the plea of the petitioner that he is entitled to exemption from passing the test under G.O.Ms.No.165 dated 22.04.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.225 General Administration dated 18.05.1999 is rejected as the aforesaid exemption is not applicable in view of the Government Memo.No.l0922/SER.C98 dated 26.03.1998, and the said exemption is available only for first promotion.

(3.) In the light of the aforesaid pleadings, the tribunal considered the rival contentions and came to the conclusion that passing of the requisite test under the new rules is necessary and merely because the panel containing the name of the petitioner was prepared prior to the coming into force of the new rules, it would not make any difference in view of the fact that the said panel was approved only after the new rules came into force. It was also noticed that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption from passing the said test and consequently, the OA was dismissed on the ground that the applicant filed to acquire the qualifications and he did not choose to make an attempt to pass the test prescribed. The aforesaid order is in challenge in this writ petition.