J. RANGASWAMY versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 3 S.C.R. 874 · Decided: 28-04-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
J. RANGASWAMY 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
•APRIL 28, 1995 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.] 
Service Law : Diploma holder from Bhabha Atomic Research 
\ 
Centre-Already working in Special Ad hoc post with pay scale higher than 
that of professor-Plea that the diploma be regarded as adequate qualification 
c for the post of professor-State directed to consider the plea--State without 
considering the question downgraded the post to that lecturer-Held: He has 
to be treated to be posted as professor-Decision of downgrading the post to 
be kept in abeyance till his superannuation-Rules not to be amended or 
modified since order passed in particular facts and circumstances of the case. 
D 
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition and Civil Appeal before this 
T 
Court with the plea that for efficient discharge of the duties of the post of 
professor of Radiological Physics, the diploma in Radiological Physics 
from Bhabba Atomic Research Centre (BARC) held by him is more 
relevant than a doctrate in Nuclear physics. 
E 
This court permitted the petitioner to move the appropriate 
authorities for a review of the prescribed qualification and directed that if 
the doctrate in Nuclear Physics was made out to be irrelevant for the post, 
the authorities concerned should take expeditions steps to revise necessary 
' -
F 
qualifications. 
Pursuant to the direction of. the court, the petitioner filed repre-
sentation before the Government of Andbra Pradesh to amend the rules 
governing the post of professor of Radiological Physics in order to treat 
the qualification held by him as sufficient for the post. 
G 
Petitioner filed I.A. with the plea that inspite of his representation 
have been examined by an enqniry commission appointed by the govern-
·-
ment which bad snbmitted its report in this favour, the government was 
not taking any steps to consider the report and revise the rules. 
H 
The court directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh to examine 
874 
' 
--) 
J. RANGASWAMYv. STATE OF AP. 
875 
the report of the enquiry commission and take appropriate decision at the A 
earliest. 
Despite the direction of the court, Government not having taken any 
steps, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition. The counter affidavit filed 
was without any indication with regard to any definite step taken by the 
Government. The counter stated that separate Departmental Rules were B 
framed, governing the service of Department of Medical Education which 
were under consideration. 
The Court granted time to the State Government for taking all 
necessary steps and extend all benefits to the petitioner. 
On the next date of hearing the Government stated to have complied 
with all the orders of the court and in support of which a copy of G.O. Ms. 
c 
No. 176 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (Ml) Department dated 
13.4.1995 was filed which stated that since no one qualified for the post 
and the post is not mandatory according to the guidelines of the Medical D 
Council of India, the post is down-graded to the post of lecturer. 
A copy of the observation of the Screening Committee was also filed 
which said that the post existed only in the college of the petitioner, which 
was created in order to accommodate a particular candidate and that, 
under normal university rules lecturer does not straightaway become E 
professor and at the relevant time none of the available persons was fit to 
be promoted. 
A letter dated 13.4.1995 from Secretary to Government, Health, 
Medical and Family Welfare Department Government of A.P. to the Advo-
cate-on-Record was also produced. 
Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. The material placed before the Court does not indicate 
that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has ever considered properly the G 
petitioner's representation - and in particular the question, whether 
diploma held by the petitioner is adequate qualification for the post of 
professor of Radiological 'Physics. The "Observation of the Screening Com-
mittee" contains no reference to this aspect nor does G.O.Ms. No.176 dated 
April 13, 1995. Only in the letter dated April 13, 1995, one sentence occurs 
that "the rules governing the said post have been examined vis-a-vis the H 
876 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995] 3 S.C.R. 
A recommendation of One Man Commission/The Director of Medical Ednca· 
tion and also the guidelines prescribed by the Medical Council of India and 
it is felt that Ph.D in Physics or Nuc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.