- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
J. Ranga Swamy v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner initially filed two separate Revision Petitions (R.P. No. 316 of 1977 and R.P. No. 69 of 1984) before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal challenging: (a) the State’s action in converting a non-gazetted post held by the respondent into a gazetted post of Lecturer in Radiological Physics and appointing the respondent thereto, and (b) a subsequent Government Order upgrading that post to Professor of Radiological Physics and promoting the respondent. By order dated 23 April 1984, the Tribunal gave limited reliefs to the petitioner concerning regularisation and allowances.
The petitioner’s review petition (No. 607 of 1984) was dismissed on 24 December 1984. He then obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 4344 of 1986) and simultaneously filed Writ Petition No. 4619 of 1985 seeking multiple writs, including quo warranto against the respondent and mandamus for his own appointment. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court dismissed both the civil appeal and the writ petition on 7 February 1989; review petitions against those orders were also dismissed on 30 March 1989.
The present matters are styled as “applications for directions” in the earlier civil appeal, writ petition and review petitions, but in substance they seek a further review of the Supreme Court’s prior orders. Because the Registry questioned their maintainability, they were listed before the Court to decide that very issue.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the present “applications for directions,” which in effect seek a second review of the Supreme Court’s earlier final orders, are maintainable.
- In the alternative, whether the petitioner is entitled to relief on any of three substantive complaints: (i) alleged creation of posts and appointments favouring the respondent; (ii) the petitioner’s non-selection as Professor of Radiological Physics; and (iii) the interpretation by authorities of the Supreme Court’s 1989 observation that the petitioner was “not entitled to further relief.”
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Relied on the decision in Antulay (1988) 2 SCC 602 to contend that a further review is permissible when earlier orders lack reasons.
- Asserted that posts were created and upgraded solely to benefit the respondent, allegedly without valid rules and in a mala fide manner.
- Claimed superior qualifications—specifically a BARC diploma in Radiological Physics—over the respondent’s doctorate in Nuclear Physics, arguing the former is more relevant to the post.
- Contended that the Court’s remark that he is “not entitled to further relief” is being misinterpreted to deny him even those benefits granted by the Tribunal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (“Antulay case”) (1988) 2 SCC 602 | Illustrates circumstances in which final judgments may be revisited to prevent miscarriage of justice. | The Court held that the principle from Antulay is inapplicable because all petitioner’s points had already been heard and considered in the earlier proceedings. |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
1. Maintainability: The Court observed that every contention now raised had already been urged before, and considered by, the Bench that decided the civil appeal and writ petition in 1989. The absence of detailed reasons in that order does not justify a “second review.” Therefore, the current applications are per se not maintainable.
2. Substantive Complaints: Notwithstanding the threshold bar, the Court addressed the petitioner’s three complaints:
- Creation of posts / appointments: The respondent holds posts for which he is qualified; the petitioner’s locus to impugn those appointments is doubtful, and in any event the Tribunal had already granted the limited reliefs the petitioner ultimately sought.
- Non-selection as Professor: The prescribed qualification for the professorial post is a doctorate. The respondent holds a doctorate in Nuclear Physics whereas the petitioner does not. The Court declined to evaluate the comparative relevance of a BARC diploma versus a doctorate, noting that qualification criteria fall within the domain of the appointing authorities. If the petitioner believes the criteria are inappropriate, his remedy lies with those authorities, not with the Court.
- Interpretation of “no further relief” remark: The 7 February 1989 order merely foreclosed the specific reliefs sought in the earlier litigation; it was not intended to deprive the petitioner of benefits otherwise due to him. The Court clarified that the respondents must honour the Tribunal’s directions and any lawful entitlements accruing thereafter.
Holding and Implications
Applications Dismissed. No order as to costs.
Implications: The Court’s dismissal leaves intact its 1989 final orders and the Tribunal’s limited reliefs. The petitioner may still pursue administrative avenues to challenge qualification requirements, but no further judicial review of the prior Supreme Court decisions is available. The judgment sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming the finality of Supreme Court orders and the narrow scope for exceptional review.
S. Ranganathan, J.— The petitioner filed two petitions before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The first petition (R.P No. 316 of 1977) requested the Tribunal to declare the action of the State of Andhra Pradesh in “isolating and framing the rules for the post of Lecturer in Radiological Physics and converting the non-gazetted post held by the respondent 4, Shri D.K Subrahmanyam Reddy (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’), as gazetted and in appointing respondent 4 to the said post”; the other (R.P No. 69 of 1984) contained a prayer to declare the government order by which the post of Lecturer in Radiological Physics at the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, was upgraded to that of Professor of Radiological Physics and G.O Ms. No. 651 dated October 20, 1983, promoting respondent 3 (respondent 4 in the earlier petition) as Professor in Radiological Physics as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Tribunal discussed the various points raised by the petitioner but ultimately disposed of both petitions with certain directions regarding the regularisation of and the grant of certain allowances to the petitioner. This was on April 23, 1984. A review petition appears to have been filed by the petitioner (No. 607 of 1984), which was dismissed by the Tribunal on December 24, 1984.
2. Thereupon the petitioner filed a petition for leave to appeal to this Court from the order of the Tribunal which was granted. This was Civil Appeal No. 4344 of 1986. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No. 4619 of 1985 praying for a writ of certiorari calling upon the State Government to explain the basis of the various government orders conferring benefits on the respondent, a writ of quo warranto restraining the respondent from holding the post mentioned above without having any qualifications therefor and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to appoint the petitioner to the above post of Professor. The civil appeal as well as the writ petition were heard by three learned Judges of this Court, who dismissed the same on February 7, 1989. The petitioner thereafter preferred review petitions Nos. 177 and 194 of 1989, against the above two orders and these were also dismissed on March 30, 1989. Though the petitioner has now filed what purport to be applications for directions in the above civil appeal, writ petition and review petitions, what the petitioner is seeking in substance is a review of the earlier orders of this Court in the writ petition as well as the civil appeal. On an objection raised by the office to the maintainability of these applications, the matter was posted before court and it was directed that these matters be listed subject to the question of maintainability being agitated before the bench.
3. We are clearly of the opinion that these applications are not maintainable. The petitioner, who appeared in person, referred to the judgment in Antulay case (1988) 2 SCC 602. We are, however, of the opinion that the principle of that case is not applicable here. All the points which the petitioner urged regarding the constitutionality of the government orders in question as well as the appointment of respondent instead of petitioner to the post in question had been urged before the bench, which heard the civil appeal and writ petitions originally. The petitioner himself stated that he was heard by the bench at some length. It is, therefore, clear that the matters were disposed of after a consideration of all the points urged by the petitioner and the mere fact that the order does not discuss the contentions or give reasons cannot entitle the petitioner to have what is, virtually, a second review.
4. We heard the petitioner at some length as he appeared in person and appeared to be oppressed by a strong sense of injustice that his qualification and long experience have been ignored while, at almost every stage, the respondent who, according to him, was less qualified and had a much inferior type of experience, was granted many favours and promotions which he did not deserve. His complaint was threefold. The first was an allegation that posts were created for, and appointments offered to, the respondent to which he was not at all, according to the petitioner, entitled. The second was regarding his non-selection as Professor in Radiological Physics at Vishakapatnam. The third was about the observation of this Court in the review order that the petitioner would be entitled to no further relief.
5. We see no substance in the first of these contentions. The respondent is occupying posts for which he was qualified. The petitioner no doubt pleaded that those posts have been created mala fide and that no valid rules had been framed therefor. It is doubtful how far the petitioner has any locus to challenge those appointments. However, the petitioner restricted his claims before the Tribunal and it is seen that the Tribunal gave the petitioner the limited reliefs ultimately prayed for by him.
6. So far as the second plea is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner does not have, while the respondent has, a doctorate in nuclear physics. The plea of the petitioner is that, for efficient discharge of the duties of the post in question, the diploma in radiological physics (as applied in Medicine) from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) held by him is more relevant than a doctorate in nuclear physics. It is submitted that in all corresponding posts elsewhere, a diploma in radiological physics is insisted upon and that, even in the State of Andhra Pradesh, all other physicists working in the line, except the respondent, have the diploma of the BARC. It is not for the court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts. The post in question is that of a Professor and the prescription of a doctorate as a necessary qualification therefor is nothing unusual. Petitioner also stated before us that, to the best of his knowledge, there is no doctorate course anywhere in India in radiological physics. That is perhaps why a doctorate in nuclear physics has been prescribed. There is nothing prima facie preposterous about this requirement. It is not for us to assess the comparative merits of such a doctorate and the BARC diploma held by the petitioner and decide or direct what should be the qualifications to be prescribed for the post in question. It will be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to move the college, university, government, Indian Medical Council or other appropriate authorities for a review of the prescribed qualifications and we hope that, if a doctorate in nuclear physics is so absolutely irrelevant for the post in question as is sought to be made out by the petitioner, the authorities concerned will take expeditious steps to revise the necessary qualifications needed for the post appropriately. But, on the qualifications as they stand today, the petitioner is not eligible to the post and cannot legitimately complain against his non-selection.
7. The third plea made by the petitioner is that the observation made by this Court in the order dated February 7, 1989 in C.A No. 4344 of 1986 that the “appellant is not entitled to further relief” is being interpreted by the authorities to deny the petitioner all his legitimate entitlements till today. We may clarify that the order of February 7, 1989 was only intended to foreclose the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in his application to the Tribunal which was the subject matter of appeal to this Court. The respondents should grant to the petitioner the reliefs given to him by the Tribunal and cannot also deny him any other benefits that he may be otherwise entitled to in law.
8. With these observations, we dismiss these applications. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert