HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8982 OF 2008 DATED 4th December, 2014.
BETWEEN Md. Samioddin ….Petitioner And The Government of AP, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Technical Education & Training, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8982 OF 2008
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
The petitioner studied Diploma in Commercial and Computer Practice (DCCP) during the academic years 1990-94 and passed in the year 1995 from Krishnadevaraya Government Polytechnic, Wanaparthy. He also studied English Shorthand and English Typewriting Papers I and II along with other 26 subjects. It is his case that the students who passed the said examinations are entitled for equivalency certificate of Higher Grade Typewriting (English) and English Shorthand and there was no restriction imposed by the respondents. Thereafter the curriculum of DCCP course was revised and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.927, dated 30.08.1978 for issuance of equivalency certificate of Higher Grade Typewriting (English) provided the said candidate shall pass DCCP with Typewriting as special subject. Thereafter G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 07.11.2001 was issued stating that only those candidates who secured 45% of the marks in the end examination of the subject concerned and successfully completed the 3rd year Diploma course excluding sessional marks for NC, C-90 and C-96 are entitled for equivalency certificate. The petitioner, as already stated above, completed DCCP course in the year 1995 . It is his case that the syllabus prescribed during his study cannot be compared with the revised syllabus. Thus even as per the said Government Order, he obtained more than 45% of the marks in the end examination in Paper I and 36% in Paper II in the final year. He stated that in view of the said Government Order, he was denied issuance of equivalency certificate on the ground that he has not obtained 45% marks in Paper II. He submitted an application on 15.12.2007 to the second respondent for issuance of equivalency certificate in Shorthand Higher Grade, however, the same was not considered. The present Writ Petition was filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.118, Higher Education (T.E.I) Department, dated 07.11.2001 in fixing the minimum percentage of marks as 45% in the examination.
The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner passed out three year Diploma in Commercial and Computer Practice examination during the year 1995, but it is not correct to state that all the students who passed the said examination are entitled for equivalency certificate of Higher Grade Typewriting (English) and English Shorthand. As per G.O.Ms.No.927, dated 30.08.1978 there was a restriction of securing 40% of marks in each of the three papers under special subject of English Typewriting in the examination. The respondents have constituted Committees from time to time to make recommendations for grant of equivalency or otherwise of certificates. The Committee so constituted met on 27.12.1996 and considered equivalency to such of those candidates who passed under the above scheme with the certificate course in Typewriting and shorthand by higher grade and recommended to grant of equivalency certificate to the candidates who have passed Diploma in Commercial and Computer Practice (DCCP) with Shorthand and Typewriting as one of the subjects with 45% of marks in the examination of the subjects concerned with that of typewriting and shorthand examinations conducted by the second respondent. Based on the above said recommendations, G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 07.11.2001 was issued. The petitioner has completed the diploma under C-90 scheme and therefore he is not eligible for issuance of equivalency certificate either under G.O.Ms.No.927 or under G.O.Ms.No.118 as he got 36% of marks in the end examination.
Though the petitioner challenges subsequent G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 07.11.2001, the very format for giving equivalency certificate is already declared even as per earlier G.O.Ms.No.927, dated 30.08.1978. In the light of the same, the petitioner should have secured 45% marks in each of the papers of I,II and III of the examinations excluding sessional marks. However, the petitioner got only 36% in the end examination and the same was admitted by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the Writ Petition.
In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 4th December, 2014. Msnrx