HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.20089 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard both sides. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in issuing proceedings in Roc.No.C1/22/SVIMS/2010, dated 11.07.2011, deciding to revert the petitioner to the A.P. Pay Scales from those of Union Grants Commission, as applicable to the post of Associate Professor in the College of Physiotherapy and to recover the alleged excess payments made to the petitioner, pursuant to his promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the year 2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: - In response to the recruitment notification issued by the second respondent on 24.09.2003, to fill up the post of Assistant Professor in the College of Physiotherapy, the petitioner attended the interview conducted by the Selection Committee and was appointed as Assistant Professor and his services in the said post were regularized with effect from 18.03.2004. In course of time, he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor and he was declared as approved probationer with effect from 24.02.2009 in the said post. While the things stood thus, the second respondent issued memo, dated 29.01.2011, to the effect that Union Grants Commission Scales have been extended to them. However, in the recent AG Audit, it was pointed out that staff working in the College of Physiotherapy does not have pre-requisite qualifications as per the Union Grants Commission norms and a memo was issued reverting back some members to their substantive posts including the petitioner and also deciding to recover the excess amount paid to them. To the said memo, the petitioner submitted objections. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent without considering the objections raised by him, issued the impugned proceedings. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, the qualification of Ph.D. is not a mandatory and the authority who issued the impugned proceedings has come to a pre- conclusion as it is specifically stated in the impugned proceedings that it was decided to revert all the teaching staff working in the College of Nursing and College of Physiotherapy to A.P. scales and to recover the excess payment made to them and therefore, he prays to allow the writ petition. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for respondent No.1 contended that the petitioner is not having five years of service in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, therefore, the impugned notice is issued calling for the objections and the competent authority has to take appropriate decision as per the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the Associate Professor and therefore, the writ petition is pre- mature. The AG Audit has taken objections with regard to the promotion of the petitioner as Associate Professor as he does not acquire the requisite qualification and experience prescribed as per the Union Grants Commission norms. Though it is stated in the impugned proceedings that the authority has decided to revert all the teaching staff working in the College of Nursing and College of Physiotherapy to A.P. scales, but the same appears to be a show cause notice calling upon all the teaching staff working in the institution to file their objections, if any, on or before 15.07.2011 and thereafter, the same was extended to 31.07.2011. Admittedly, the petitioner has not given any explanation to the impugned proceedings, dated 11.07.2011. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to give an explanation to the impugned proceedings to the Director on or before 31.07.2011 and thereafter, the competent authority shall take appropriate decision as per the rules and regulations as to whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Associate Professor. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 20th July 2011 DR