IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

FRIDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

WRIT APPEAL NO: 242 OF 2024

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the orders in W.P.No.18164/2019, dated 02-09-2022 on the file of the High Court.

Between:

• 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
• 2. The Commissioner, Agriculture Department Old Market Yard Chuttugunta Guntur Guntur District.
• The District Selection Committee, Rep by its Chairman cum District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool. 3.
• 4. The Joint Director, Agriculture Department, Kurnool, Kurnool District

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

Kesava Kumar Madika, S/o Hanumanthu M K, Aged ³² years, Occ; MPEO R/o 55-37, Somappa Nagar, Emmiganum Kurnool District.

...RESPONDENTS

lA NO: ² OF 2024

Petition under Section ¹⁵¹ CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated: 02-09-2022 passed in WP.No. 18164/2019 pending disposal of the writ appeal.

Counsel for the Appellant(s): GP for Village and Ward Secretariats

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E SAMBASIVA PRATAP

The Court made the following: ORDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

W.A.No.242 of 2024

JUDGMENT; (perHonourable SriJustice Nyapathy Vijay)

1. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the Order dated 02.09.2022 in W.P.No.18164 of 2019 passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court where under Respondent Nos.2 to ⁴ were directed to consider the representation dated 24.08.2022 made by the petitioner by duly considering the clarifications given by the University dated 22.01.2013, 5.08.2019 and 29.09.2017 within ^a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy. 11.01.2011,

2. The parties herein are referred to as per their nomenclature in the Writ Petition.

3. The facts leading to the present Writ Appeal are as under;-

The writ petitioner had completed Bachelor Degree in the year ²⁰¹¹ in B.Sc., (Commercial Agriculture & Business Management) which is ^a 4 years course. The qualification of B.Sc., (Commercial Agriculture & Business Management) is equivalent to B.Sc., (Agriculture) in all aspects.

4. While so, ^a notification was issued by the State on 26.07.2019 vide Notification No.01/2019 calling for applications for 6714 posts of Village Agriculture Assistant, Gr.II under A.P. Agricultural Subordinate Services Rules. The educational qualification prescribed under the notification was that the candidate should have passed either of the following degrees;-

• B.Sc., (Agriculture) (or)

4 years B. Tech., (Agriculture Engineering) from a recognized University in State/any other University accredited by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Ministry of Agriculture Farmer Welfare, Govt, of India, New Delhi (or) &

• 2 years Diploma in Agriculture Polytechnic (or)

• 2 years Diploma In Agriculture Polytechnic (Seed Technology) (or)

• 2 years Diploma In Agriculture Polytechnic (Organic Farming) (or)

• 3 years Diploma in Agriculture Polytechnic (Agricultural Engineering) recognized by ANGRAU (or)

• Serving MPEOs with B.Sc., (BZC) Degree.

5. In the year 2016, ^a notification was issued for selection to the post of Multi Purpose Extension Officer (MPEO) in Agriculture Department and after due selection selected by the District Level Selection Committee and process, the petitioner was was appointed as Multi Purpose Extension Officer (MPEO) on contract basis vide

Roc.No.A3/3430/2014, dt.02.02.2016 issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool. While working as MPEO, the petitioner applied to the said post and had appeared in the written examination on 04.09.2019 and had secured 64.25 marks apart from 10.5 service weightage marks and ^a rank of 372. The petitioner was issued ^a call letter by Respondent No.3 on 26.9.2019 to attend the certificates verification. After verification of certificates, the petitioner was issued appointment order as Village Agricultural Assistant (Grade-II) vide Rc.No.A5/295365/19/DSC-2019, Dated 30.09.2019 and was directed to join the Office of Joint Director, Agriculture Department, Kurnool on 01.10.2019.

At that stage, the petitioner was informed that the qualification of the petitioner i.e., B.Sc., (Commercial Agriculture & Business Management) is in excess of the prescribed qualification of B.Sc., (Agriculture) and unless an exemption is given by Respondent No.2, the petitioner cannot be issued posting orders. Hence, the Writ Petition was filed to direct Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to issue posting 6. orders for appointment.

7. Respondent Nos.l to 3 and Respondent No.4 filed their separate Counter Affidavits. The common stand taken in the Counter Affidavits was that the qualification of the petitioner i.e., B.Sc., (Commercial

j.,

Agriculture & Business Management) is not the same as prescribed in the Rules as well as in the notification and therefore the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment as Village Agricultural Assistant (Grade II), which prescribes qualification of B.Sc., (Agriculture) others. among

8. The Learned Single Judge referred to the Letter dated 11.01.2011 issued by Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (for short "ANGRAU") that B.Sc., (Commercial Agriculture & Business Management) is equivalent to B.Sc., (Agriculture) and candidates with B.Sc., (Commercial Agriculture &. Business Management) Degree can be considered for all Government jobs prescribing qualification B.Sc., (Agriculture). A similar letter was also issued by the said University on 23.01.2013 and 05.08.2019. Taking into consideration the letters issued by ANGRAU, directed the respondents to consider of and pass orders within a period of four (4) months. Hence, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

9. Heard Learned Government Pleader for Village and Ward Secretariats appearing for the Appellants and Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents.

coniention of the appellant-State is that the letter 10. The primary issued by the University was only an opinion of the Dean of the said Circular/Rule/Statute to be binding on the University and is not ^a recruiting agency contended that the University which has given the degrees is entitled to equivalence of degrees under Section 22 of the Universities Act, ¹⁹⁰⁴ and therefore, the direction of the learned Single of the State Government. The learned Senior Counsel determine the Judge cannot be faulted.

11. The issues for determination are as follows;-

Whether the letters from the individuals working in ANGRAU is sufficient to determine the equivalence? 3)

"b) Whether the Respondent Nos. ² to ⁴ are competent to determine the issue of equivalence?"

12. The prescription of educational qualification of B.Sc., (Agriculture) for the post of Village Agriculture Assistant, Grade-II is traceable to Statutory Rules i.e. A.P. Agricultural Subordinate Service vide G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 30.01.2020. Rules, ¹⁹⁹⁷ as amended Under the amendment, the post of Village Agriculture Assistant, Grade-II was created and the educational qualification of B.Sc., (Agriculture) was prescribed.

13. Though the petitioner referred to letters issued by the ANGRAU stating that the B.Sc., (Commercial Agriculture & Business Management) is equivalent to B.Sc., (Agriculture), the letters would not satisfy the requirement to determine equivalence. The issue of equivalence is an academic matter and ^a decision of the academic body of the University relating to equivalence should be by way of ^a specific order or resolution, duly published. The letters issued by ANGRAU do not disclose that they were issued pursuant to ^a conscious decision of an academic body of the University. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Sanjay Kumar Katwai and another^, while considering issue of equivalence opined at para 15 as under:

"15. The first respondent has passed his M.A. (OUS) from Annamaiai University through distance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university reiating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to • show that appellant university has recognized the M.A. English (OUS) of Annamaiai University through distance education as equivalent to M.A. of appellant university. Thus it has to be held that first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant university for admission to three year law course."

(2009) ¹ see 610

Therefore, in the absence of ^a specific order, decision or resolution from the academic council of the university, letters of communication from individuals working in the University would not suffice. The point (a) is accordingly answered. 14.

Even otherwise, the prescription of qualification for ^a post is ^a matter of recruitment policy and the State is entitled to prescribe its conditions of eligibility. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State as a recruiting authority to determine. 15. own

this regard, the Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of Devender Bhaskar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others^, the Hon"ble Apex Court pleased to observe on the issue of equivalence in paragraph Nos. 19 to 26 as under: 16. In

"19. The documents. Exhibit P2 to P4 do not claim that the course in question has been recognized as equivalent to two year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Educational Department

20. We have already noticed that one of the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Arts and Crafts teacher as the advertisement dated 20.07.2006 is ^a "two-year Diploma in per

^{^} 2021 see Online sc 1116

. Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department" It was made dear by the Industrial Training and Vocational Educational Department, Haryana, that diploma in Art and Craft Course by the Kurukshetra University is conducted through distance education and that this course cannot be equated with two year dipioma in Art and Craft Course awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department Recognition of the said Course awarded by the State of Haryana, as held by the High Court, is entirely different from its equivalence. When the experts In the Educational Department have held the diploma In Art and Craft awarded by the Haryana Industrial Training Department, we are of the view that the High • Court was notjustified in equalizing them.

21. In Mohammad Shujat AH Vs. Union of India^, it was held that the question regarding equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical question based on proper assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic standards and practical attainments of such qualifications. It was further held that where the decision of the Government is based on the recommendation of an expert body, then the Court, uninformed of relevant data and unaided by technical Insights necessary for the purpose of determining equivalence, would not lightly disturb the decision of the Government unless it based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations or actuated mala iTdes or Is irrational and perverse or manifestly wrong.

22. In J.Ranga Swamy Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh^ this Court held that it is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualification prescribed for various posts.

23. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Lata Arunf, this Court held that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It was held thus: course

"13. From the ratio of the decisions noted above, it is dear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to ^a course or for recruitment to or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether ^a ■ particular educational qualiifcation should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualiifcation prescribed by the authority."

24. In Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwaf, this Court has reiterated that equivalence is ^a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. Dealing specifically with whether ^a distance education course was equivalent to the degree of M. A (English) of the appellant university therein, the Court held that no material had been produced before it to show that the distance education course had been recognized as such.

25. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather Vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmatf, it was held that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications as a condition of eligibility, after taking into

⁽¹⁹⁹⁰⁾ ¹ see 288

^{^} (2002) 6 see 252

^® (2009) ¹ see 610

^' (2019) ² see 404

consideration the nature of the job, the aptitude required for efficient discharge of duties, functionaiity of various quaiifications, course content ieading up to the acquisition of quaiifications, etc. Judicial review can neither expand the ambit of the prescribed quaiifications nor decide the equivalence of the prescribed qualifications with any other given qualification. Equivalence of qualification is a matter for the State, as recruiting authority, to determine. various

26. Having regard to the above, in our view, the High Court has erred in holding that the dipioma/degree in Art and Craft given by the Kurukshetra University is equivalent to two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial 6 Training Department or diploma in Art and Craft conducted by Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana."

From the reading of the above, it is apparent that the issue of equivalence of Degrees is a policy matter and in the exclusive domain of the State. That being the settled position in law, it was open for the authorities other than the competent authority namely the State to take a decision on the equivalence of the Degree. However, In the process of determining equivalence, it shall be guided by the opinion of the University i.e., ANGRAU in this case. The point (b) is accordingly answered. 17. not

18. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge directing Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the representations of the petitioner taking into consideration the letters issued by ANGRAU is modified and Respondent No. 1/State is directed to consider the issue of equivalence of B.Sc. (Commercial Agriculture & Business Management) and B.Sc. (Agriculture).

!!

19. Though ANGRAU is not ^a party to this case, since their opinion with regard to equivalence has a bearing on the decision to be taken by Respondent No.l, ANGRAU is called upon to take decision as opined by Honourable Supreme Court in the above quoted Judgment with regard to equivalence of B.Sc. (Commercial Agriculture & Business Management) and B.Sc. (Agriculture) forthwith and communicate their decision to Respondent No.l within ^a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Respondent No.l is directed to take a decision on the equivalence within two (2) months thereafter. a conscious

20. A post of Village Agricultural Assistant, Grade-II was reserved pursuant to interim order in Writ Petition on 19.11.2019 and the same shall be kept vacant till ^a decision is taken by Respondent No.l.

21. With the above modification, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications. if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- E. KAMESWARA RAO deputy registrar

Ly //true copy// (/^^ECTION OFFICER

To,

• Secretariats, High Court of Andhra GPfor Village and Ward 1. Two CCS to Pradesh [OPUC]
• PRATAP Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI ^E SAMBASIVA
• 3. Three CD Copies

Madhu

MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED: 15/03/2024

ORDER

WA.No.242 of 2024

DISPOSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS

4 VM - M