1. The State prefers this intra Court appeal Under Clause 15 of letters patent against the order dated 24.02.2020 in W.P No.1498/2020 passed by learned single Judge allowing the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of Principal Grade-II and directing the respondents to immediately consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as prayed for.

2. The writ petitioner’s case is that he was appointed as Residential Teacher in Biological Sciences (RT Botany) on 24.08.2001 on contract basis and subsequently his services were regularized as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) w.e.f. 01.10.2007 and his probation was declared on 30.09.2009. Though he was appointed as TGT, the respondents utilized his services as Junior Lecturer (JL) in Botany in A.P. Balayogi Gurukulams in Zone-1 from 24.08.2001 to 04.06.2007 in A.P. Social Welfare Residential School / Junior College (Boys), Golugonda, Visakhapatnam District and again from 29.08.2009 to 04.06.2013 in the same place as JL Botany. (a) His further case is that pursuant to the notification No.1/2019, dated 14.02.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent for appointment to the posts of District Coordinator(DCO)/Principal Grade-II/Trained Graduate Teacher(TGT)/Care Taker (Warden) through direct recruitment in the institutions run by AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (APSWREIS), the writ petitioner having qualifications for the post of Principal, Grade-II, applied for the said post and appeared for the written examination and secured 35 marks with ID No.190047480 and was expecting to be selected as Principal, Grade-II. However, he was not considered for the said post and so he submitted representation dated 18.10.2019 to the respondent to which he received communication from the 2nd respondent informing that the petitioner has not fulfilled eligibility condition mentioned in the general notification No.1/2019. The petitioner came to know that in the selected Principals’ list uploaded on the official website of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner’s name was shown at Serial No.240, against which, in the remarks columns, it was stated “not having required experience”. The said mentioning is incorrect and the petitioner was unjustly eliminated by the 2 nd respondent.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. The 2nd respondent filed counter and opposed the writ petition inter alia contending thus:

(a) The 2nd respondent / APSWREIS was constituted by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.245, Social Welfare (Q) Department, dated 03.10.1986 to supervise, control and manage the Social Welfare Residential Institutions in the State. The management of the Society is vested in the Board of Governors with the Hon’ble Minister for Social Welfare as Chairman, It is an instrumentality of the State but not a wing of the State Government. The APSWREIS society is an autonomous body and it is fully funded by the Government and it functions as per provisions contained in the Memorandum of Association and bye-laws.

(b) Be that as it may, the 2nd respondent issued notification inviting applications for different posts including the Principal, Grade-II. Petitioner is concerned, he was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on regular basis in Bio-Science and his next promotion is Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) provided he fulfills requirements for the said post. The petitioner is not a regular PGT appointed under Direct Recruitment and therefore he is not entitled to hold the post of Principal, Grade-II. The petitioner applied for the post of Principal Grade-II, however, he was not selected as he did not possess the requisite qualification of 3 years experience as a regular employee PGT/JL in the Government / Government funded college.

(c) It is further contended that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner is not a valid certificate as he is not a regular PGT. The certificates were issued by the Principal without verifying the Services Rules and Regulations and the petitioner cannot claim the services of PGT merely by experience certificates knowing fully that he is only a TGT and not PGT. His services were utilized on adhoc basis only and that too not in a sanctioned post. Hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. As can be seen from the impugned order in W.P.No.1498 of 2020, the respondents in tune with their counter raised two contentions – firstly that the petitioner is not a regular PGT and he cannot be considered for the post of Principal, Grade-II and secondly the experience certificates submitted by the petitioner were issued by the Principal without verifying Service Rules and Regulations and therefore they cannot be relied upon.

(a) Both the contentions were negatived by learned single Judge holding that the notification did not specify that a candidates must hold a regular post and therefore such contention cannot be raised now and experience is concerned, experience certificates filed by the petitioner show that he worked as JL Botany in two spells for about 10 years and those certificates were not disputed by the 2nd respondent except stating that they were not issued as per service conditions and said contention is also untenable. Thus learned single Judge allowed the writ petition. Hence the appeal.

5. Heard arguments of learned Advocate General (AG) for appellant and Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent/writ petitioner.

6. While fulminating the order in W.P.No.1498 of 2020, learned AG vehemently argued that learned single Judge wholly misconceived the eligibility criteria fixed in the notification and erroneously held as if the candidate does not require to gain the stipulated experience from a regular post, for, the notification is silent on the condition that a candidate should hold regular post. Referring to the eligibility conditions for the post of Principal, Grade-II, he pointed out that the condition specifies that a candidate must have a total teaching experience of not less than 10 years which shall include 3 years of experience as PGT or JL in any Government / Government Aided School / Junior College. Emphasizing the condition of total teaching experience of not less than 10 years, learned AG would submit that a candidate who has completed 10 years of teaching service would obviously be in a regular post and in that context, he must have 3 years of experience out of 10 years as a regular PGT or JL in any Government / Government Aided School / Junior College. Learned AG would strenuously argue that holding a regular post of PGT or JL is intrinsic and implied when the eligibility conditions are holistically viewed. However, he would emphasize, the writ petitioner was only a TGT and he was not officiating either a regular PGT post or a regular JL post during relevant period. His services were utilized as JL on adhoc basis. Such need based utilization cannot be counted for experience in a regular post. Therefore, the learned single Judge, instead of equalizing the teaching experience of the petitioner in an adhoc post with regular post, ought to have dismissed the writ petition. He placed reliance on Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) 2 SCC 404 [LQ/SC/2018/1557] = 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2680 to contend that the Courts under the power of judicial review shall not don the role of expanding the scope and ambit of qualifications prescribed for recruitment of a post which is essentially the power and authority of the State or other employer. So also the equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which may be determined in exercise of power of judicial review. He thus prayed to allow the appeal.

7. Per contra, Sri C.Prakash Reddy, while supporting the impugned order argued that the candidature of the writ petitioner was unduly rejected by the respondents though he possessed the requisite qualifications. In expatiation, he would submit, eligibility conditions inter alia would only spell out that a candidate must have 10 years of teaching experience out of which he must have 3 years experience as PGT/JL in any Government / Government Aided School / Junior College without specifying that such experience of either 3 years or 10 years from “a regular post”. The petitioner though was a TGT, however has had 10 years of experience as JL in the subject of Botany in A.P. Social Welfare Residential School / Junior College (Boys), Golugonda, Visakhapatnam District and his services were utilized as JL by none other than the 2nd respondent and therefore he is very much qualified for the post of Principal, Grade-II. He would reiterate that in the notification, experience alone was mentioned rather the source of experience. Therefore, in the teeth of the notified conditions, he would submit, the present argument of the appellant does not hold water. He would submit that the appellant now cannot add the word “regular” at the relavant place in the notification. On the other hand, the notification should be understood as it stood by the relevant date of examination. He placed reliance on Bank of India vs. K. Mohandas (2009) 5 SCC 313 [LQ/SC/2009/685] . He thus prayed to dismiss the appeal.

8. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the appeal to allow

9. Point: We gave our anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. To decide the controversy and appreciate the validity of the order impugned, it is expedient to extract the qualifications prescribed for the post of Principal Grade-II in the General Recruitment Notification No.01/2019 issued by 2nd respondent. The eligibility conditions are thus:

V. ELIGIBILITYCONDITIONS:

1. Academic Qualifications:

a) District Coordinator:

1. A Post Graduate Degree from any university recognized by University Grants Commission (UGC)

2. Administrative experience of 3 years in State / Central Govt. Organizations

b) Principal Grade-II:

1. A Post Graduate Degree with 1st class (with minimum 60% marks) from any university recognized by University Grants Commission (UGC)

2. A B.Ed Degree from UGC/NCTE recognized University with minimum of 50% marks.

3. A total teaching experience of not less than 10 years including

a) 3 years of experience as PGT or JL in any Govt. / Govt. Aided school / Jr. College

OR

b) 3 years of administrative experience as Head Master / Principal of a High School or Jr. college funded by State / Central / Union Territory Government.

10. Thus, a plain reading would show that the qualifications are broadly divided into two categories viz., (i) Academic or educational qualification and (ii) Teaching experience.

(a) Academic or educational qualification is concerned, a candidate must hold a Post Graduate Degree with 1 st class (with minimum 60% marks) from any university recognized by University Grants Commission and he must possess a B.Ed. Degree from UGC / NCTE recognized university with minimum of 50% marks. This is with regard to the academic / educational qualification of a candidate.

(b) Then the second category of qualification is concerned, a candidate must have a total teaching experience of not less than 10 years including

(a) 3 years of experience as PGT or J.L. in any Government / Government Aided school / Junior College

(or)

(b) 3 years of administrative experience as Head Master / Principal of a High School or Jr. College funded by State / Central / Union Territory Government

11. Now coming to the petitioner, so far as academic / educational qualification is concerned, he possesses the same which is not in demur. Rather, his qualification relating to teaching experience is the bone of contention. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as residential teacher in Biological Sciences (RT Botany) on 24.08.2001 on contract basis in the APSWR School administered by 2nd respondent. Later, his service was regularized as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) w.e.f. 01.10.2007 and his probation was declared on 30.09.2009. Further, though he was appointed as TGT, the 2nd respondent utilized his services as Junior Lecturer in Botany in A.P. Balayogi Gurkulams in Zone-1 in two spells i.e., from 24.08.2001 to 04.06.2007 in the APSWR School / Junior College (Boys) Golugonda, Visakhapatnam District and again from 29.08.2009 to 04.06.2013 at the same place as J.L. Botany. The petitioner produced experience certificates before the learned single Judge. These facts were not disputed by the appellant / 2nd respondent in its counter in W.P.No.1498/2020, rather in para 6 of the counter, it was mentioned that the petitioner was appointed as TGT on regular basis in Bio-Science.

(a) So far as the constitution of the A.P. Social Welfare Residential Education Institutions Society is concerned, in its counter, the 2nd respondent has narrated that the said APSWREI Society was constituted by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.245, Social Welfare (Q) Department dated 03.10.1986 as the State level society to supervise, control and manage the social welfare residential institutions in the State. The said Society was registered under the AP. Public Societies Registration Act and the management of the Society is vested in the Board of Governors with Hon’ble Minister for Social Welfare as Chairman and Principal Secretary to the Government of Social Welfare Department as its Vice Chairman and other Government officials as members. Most importantly it is mentioned in the counter that the 2nd respondent Society is an autonomous body and it is fully funded by the Government and it performs the functions as per the provisions contained in the Memorandum of Association and Bye-Laws. It is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This vivid narration about the constitution, functions and financial status of the 2nd respondent Society would show that it is a Society fully funded by the State Government and functions with the aids granted by the Government.

(b) All the above facts would cumulatively show that the petitioner has teaching experience for more than 10 years as an RTJL in Botany in the 2nd respondent institute which is fully aided by the Government. Further, out of aforesaid 10 years, the petitioner has experience as Junior Lecturer for more than 3 years, inasmuch as, since inception his services were utilized as RTJL by the 2nd respondent.

(c) Now the contention of the appellant/respondent is that the writ petitioner did not officiate in a regular post as a Post Graduate Teacher or as a Junior Lecturer and therefore he has not fulfilled the eligibility condition. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge, the 2nd respondent has not mentioned in the notification that the 3 years experience prescribed in Rule 3(a) applies only to regular post graduate teacher or junior lecturer. Therefore, at this point of time such a contention that the petitioner did not secure the required experience from out of a regular post does not hold water in the teeth of qualifying standards already set up in the notification. It is trite law that the rules of the game and the criteria of the selection cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of selection has commenced or after the game was played. It was so held in K. Manjusri v. State of A.P. and another 2008 (3) SCC 512 [LQ/SC/2008/377] = MANU/SC/0295/2008 . It should be noted that subsequently a bench of 3 Judges in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court 2013(4) SCC 540= MANU/SC/0263/2013 , however doubted the correctness of K. Manjusri (supra 3) and made a reference to a larger bench for authoritative pronouncement and decision is awaited. Be that as it may, as the law stands today, this principle is applicable. Therefore, the appellant cannot change the conditions specified in the notification and argue that the writ petitioner has not gained 3 years teaching experience in a regular post. Such an argument militates against the notification.

12. In Bank of India’s case (supra 2) it was held that the true construction of a contract must depend upon the import of the words used and not upon what the parties choose to say afterwards. Nor does subsequent conduct of the parties in the performance of the contract effect the true effect of the clear and unambiguous words used in the contract. The intention of the parties must be ascertained from the language they have used, considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances and the object of the contract.

13. In the light of above jurisprudence, we find no merits in the contention of the appellant. The decision in Zahoor Ahmad’s case (supra 1) relied upon by learned AG is of no avail. In that case notification was issued by State of Jammu and Kashmir for among different posts, the post of Technician-III in the Power Development Department for which the prescribed qualification was Matric with ITI in relevant trade. The appellants who have higher qualification i.e., Diploma in Electrical Engineering and Diploma in Electronics and Communications also participated in the written test and interview but they were ultimately eliminated on the ground that they did not possess the prescribed qualification of Matric with ITI. They filed writ petitions and learned single Judge of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir allowed the writ petitions on the two grounds, firstly that the Board has changed the rule in the middle and secondly that the holder of a Diploma is presupposed to hold lower qualification of an ITI. The Division Bench however reversed the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the advertisement mandated an ITI in the relevant trade as a condition of eligibility and the Board has not granted any weightage to a higher qualification. The matter went upto Apex Court. The Apex Court in that context observed that in the absence of an enabling rule it would not be permissible to draw an inference that the higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another albeit, lower qualification. The prescription of qualification for a post is a matter of recruitment policy and the State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility and it is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter of State as the recruiting authority to determine. The Apex Court ultimately agreed with the judgment of the Division bench of High Court of J&K.

14. There is no demur with the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the instant case learned single Judge has not made any attempt to equate the higher or lower qualifications of the writ petitioner with the qualifications prescribed in the notification. On the other hand, admittedly the writ petitioner worked for more than 10 years as RTJL in the appellant/2nd respondent institute which is administered with the funds of the State Government. Therefore, the question of equalizing his superior or inferior qualifications with the qualifications prescribed in the notification does not arise. On the other hand, learned single Judge only disagreed with the contention of the appellant/2nd respondent that the 3 years teaching experience must necessarily be acquired from out of “a regular post” on the ground that such a stipulation was not there in the notification. So on a conspectus of facts and law we do not find any merits in the writ appeal.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed by confirming the order in W.P.No.1498/2020. No costs.

16. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.