G. SUNDARESWARARAOversusTHE GOVERNMENT OF A. P. AND ORS.

A                           G. SUNDARESWARARAO



                                                                                          -
                                            v.
                   nrn GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ORS.
                                FEBRUARY 26, 1996

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

          S e1vice Law :

          A.P. Institute of Preventive Medicine Service Ad hoc Rules:
                                                                                          --
c          Rule 4(b )-Promotion to the post of Senior Scientific Officer--G.O.
    Ms. No. 219 Health Medical & Family Welfare dated March 26,
    1987-Stipulating 5 years service after acquisition of post-graduation
    qualification-Not less than signifies legislative intention of mandatory char-
    acter of 5 years minimum experience after acquired post-graduation-Being a
D   legislative policy, it cannot be said that the roles is ultra vires or arbitrary-If
    subsequently the minimum experience after post-graduation is done away with
    the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion.

         Sheshrao Janglujibagde v. Bhaiyya, [1991) Supp. 1 SCC 367, distin-
    guished.
E
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
    No. 5934 · 35 of 1996.

          From the Judgment and Orde_r dated 28.3.95 of the Andhra Pradesh
    Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in 0.A. No. 81344/90 with M.A. No.
F   664 of 1995.

          L.N. Rao and S. Uday K. Sagar for the Petitioners.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G         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
H   Scientific Officer. Mr. L.N. Rao, the learned counsel, contends that Rule
                                       1056
-1                 G. SUNDARESWARARAOv. GOVT. OF AP.                          1057

     4(b) of the AP. Institute of Preventive Medicine Service Ad hoc Rules to         A
     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 5 years service after the
     acquisition of the post-graduation is not warranted. In support thereof, he      B
     placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Sheshrao Janglujibagde v.
     Bhaiyya, [1991] Supp. 1 SCC 367.

             Rule 4 (b) reads thus :

             "Must have not less than 5 years experience as Post- Graduate in         C
             the analysis of Food under the control of Chief Public
             analyst/Government Analyst who is appointed under the preven-
             tion of Food Adulteration Act, 1954."

           In view of that mandatory rule that the candidate must have not less
     than 5 years experience as post-graduate in the analysis of the food, the D
     intendment of the rule is manifested that after acquiring post-graduation,
     one must necessarily have not less then 5 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 Rules appears E
     to have intended that he must have expert knowledge after acquiring post
     graduation and minimum period of not less than 5 years experience has
     been prescribed and insisted under the rule. The words "not less than"
     furnishes the legislative intention of mandatory character 5 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.          F

           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 acquir-

-            ing 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
                                                                                      G


             not be just or warranted."

           But later this Court also explained that it would depend upon the          H
    1058                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996) 2 S.C.R.
                                                                                   l
A. 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.

B         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.
c
    G.N.                                                     Petition dismissed.




                                                                                       ....