G. Sundareswararao
Vs. The Government of A.P. & Ors [1996] INSC 316 (26 February 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (3) 392 1996 SCALE (2)863
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
This
special leave petition has been filed against the order of the Administrative
Tribunal, Hyderabad dated March 28, 1995 made in O.A. No.81344/90. It is the case of the petitioner
that he had the requisite qualification for promotion as a Senior Scientific
Officer. But he was unduly denied of his right for consideration for promotion
from Junior Scientific Officer. Mr. L.N. Rao, the learned counsel, contends
that Rule 4(b) of the A.P. Institute of Preventive Medicine Service Ad hoc
Rules to the post of Chief Public Analyst, Senior and Junior Scientific Officers,
issued in G.O.Ms. No.219 Health Medical & Family Welfare, dated March 26, 1987 is ultra vires of the power. Once
the petitioner acquired post-graduate qualification, the insistence of S years
service after the acquisition of the post-graduation is not warranted. In
support thereof, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Sheshrao Janglujibagde
vs. Bhaiyya [(1991) Supp. 1 SCC 367].
Rule 4
(b) reads thus:
"Must
have not less than S years experience as Post-Graduate in the analysis of Food under
the control of Chief Public analyst/Government Analyst who is appointed under
the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954." In view of that mandatory
rule that the candidate must have not less than S years experience as
post-graduate in the analysis of the food, the intendment of the rule is
manifested that after acquiring post-graduation, one must necessarily have not
less than S years experience in the analysis of food. It would be relevant to
mention that when the analysis of food for adulteration is to be made the
senior Scientific Officer is required to counter test the report of the analyst
sent in that behalf, the Rule appears to have intended that he must have expert
knowledge after acquiring post graduation and minimum period of not less than S
years experience has been prescribed and insisted under the rule. The words
"not less than" furnishes the legislative intention of mandatory
character S years minimum experience after getting post-graduate. Therefore, it
being the legislative policy, it cannot be said that the rule is ultra vires or
arbitrary.
It is
true that in the above-cited judgment, this Court has stated thus:
"Normally,
when we talk of an experience, unless the context otherwise demands, it should
be taken as experience after acquiring the minimum qualifications required and,
therefore, necessarily will have to be posterior to the acquisition of the
qualification.
However,
in the case of a promotion the same interpretation may not be just or
warranted." But later this Court also explained that it would depend upon
the relevant provisions as also the particular type of experience which is
required. In that case, on the basis of the language contained in the rules,
this Court had held that the insistence 10 years experience after post-
graduate was not required. In view of the above mandatory language, we cannot
say that the rule made was not correct in law.
It is
then contended that the Government have done away with the minimum experience
after post graduation in the subsequent rules and that, therefore, the
petitioner is entitled to be considered. We have no doubt that his case will be
considered according to rules.
The
SLP is accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2