In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the date of acquisition of a qualification for promotions or conversions in service is the date of declaration of results and not the date of issuance of the provisional certificate. The court observed that “the issuance of a provisional certificate is merely proof of qualification, not the determinant of the date of its acquisition.”
Background of the Case
The case involved Bocha Srinu Babu, the review petitioner, who contested his conversion from Additional Assistant Engineer (AAE) to Assistant Engineer (AE) under the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Regulations. He argued that the last date of his examination or the date of the declaration of his results should have been considered as the date of acquiring the qualification, rather than the date of issuance of his provisional certificate.
Initially, a writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a single bench, which upheld the employer’s stance of considering the date of the provisional certificate. The dismissal was confirmed by a division bench in Writ Appeal No. 933 of 2022. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review application seeking reconsideration.
Legal Issues
The key legal questions revolved around:
1. The correct date to determine the acquisition of qualifications for service benefits—whether it should be the last date of examination, the date of declaration of results, or the date of the provisional certificate.
2. Whether the petitioner could seek an alternative prayer to annul his conversion despite exercising an earlier option to transition to the AE post.
The Court’s Ruling
The division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice V. Srinivas reviewed the earlier judgment and identified inconsistencies in its reasoning. The bench observed:
1. Date of Qualification: Referring to precedents like Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others, the court emphasized that the date of acquiring a qualification is the date when results are declared. Justice Tilhari noted, “The issuance of a provisional certificate is only evidence of the qualification, but the actual qualification is conferred on the date of result declaration.”
2. Contradictory Observations in Earlier Judgment: The review bench pointed out conflicting views in the earlier judgment, where one part suggested that the provisional certificate’s date was decisive, while another acknowledged the result declaration date as the determinant.
3. Applicability of Regulations: The court scrutinized Regulation 33 of the APSEB Service Regulations, which links service benefits to the last day of the examination. However, a 1992 APSEB memo considered the provisional certificate date as proof of qualification for promotions. The court concluded that the memo could not override the regulation and that the latter should prevail.
4. Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate: Addressing whether the petitioner could seek alternative reliefs, the court ruled that the petitioner’s earlier exercise of an option did not preclude him from challenging the date-related aspect.
Observations and Decision
Justice Tilhari highlighted a pivotal principle: “The legal proposition is that the result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. A person would possess a qualification only on the date of declaration of the result.”
The review petition was allowed, and the earlier judgment in Writ Appeal No. 933 of 2022 was set aside. The matter is now remanded for a fresh hearing before an appropriate bench.
Counsel and Parties Involved
– Petitioner (Review Applicant): Bocha Srinu Babu, represented by Advocate Sri P.V.A. Padmanabham.
– Respondents: Represented by Advocate Sri V.V. Satish.
– Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice V. Srinivas.
