IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 23147 of 2000 Between: M.N.Ravi Kumar S/oM.L.D.A.Christopher R/o.Kavali, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Governmnet of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to declare the proceedings Rc.No.767/JC5-3/97, dated:12.5.1999 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 12.05.1999 in Rc.No.767/JC5-3/97 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Brief facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Lecturer in Commerce in the aided post in ABM Junior College, Kavali. He worked there for about 16 years and the last pay he has drawn was Rs.5,390/- per month. When a vacancy of the post of Principal in Jawahar Bharathi Junior College, Kavali, was arisen, the petitioner applied for the said post, as there was no suitable junior lecturer working in the said college and the petitioner being a qualified Junior Lecturer to appoint as Principal. The selection committee, after considering the case of the petitioner, appointed the petitioner as Principal of Jawahar Bharathi Junior College, Kavali. After appointment, the petitioner started discharging the duties as the Principal of the said college. As no protection of the last pay drawn was given to the petitioner, his pay was fixed only at Rs.4,130/- as the Principal of the said college, which is much lesser than what he had last drawn as Junior Lecturer. The petitioner gave representations bringing the said anomaly to the notice of the authorities. But, however, the same was negatived by an order dated 12.05.1999 stating that the representation for protection of pay cannot be considered, as the same is not covered by any rules. The said order dated 12.05.1999 is under challenge in this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit is filed stating that Jawahar Bharathi Junior College is a separate unit and the petitioner on his own opted to be appointed as the Principal of the said college and as such, he cannot seek protection of the pay which he was drawing as the Junior Lecturer of another college. Further, in the said counter, it is also stated that there are no rules covering the protection of pay scale and the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the Assistant Government Pleader for higher education. Apparently, the petitioner worked as a Junior Lecturer in an aided post in A.B.M. Junior College for a period of 16 years and his last pay drawn was Rs.5,390/- per month. May be it is true that he applied for the post of Principal in Jawahar Bharathi Junior College, Kavali, but it cannot be said that he would be agreeable to be appointed as the Principal of the said college for any lesser salary than what he was drawing as a Junior Lecturer. From a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and the other material papers, it appears that the Government has extended the pay protection in the cases of several individuals. One of such cases is the case of one Dr.Subrahmanyam Reddy, who worked at Jawahar Bharathi Degree College at Kavali and subsequently selected as Lecturer in History to S.V.University, Tirupati. On a representation made by him, his pay last drawn was protected. Similarly, in the case of one Smt.Y.Krishna Kumari, who worked as Junior Lecturer in Botony for a period of 9 years in S.R.Y.S.P. Junior College, Challapalli her pay was protected while she was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in Ideal Junior College, Kakinada. When similar protection is given in the cases of certain individuals, it is not known as to why the respondents taken altogether a different stand in the case of the petitioner. Further, this Court is of the view that no Junior Lecturer would refer to some other college on a lesser pay even if the same is promotion as Principal. Thinking the last pay drawn will be protected any Lecturer or Junior Lecturer will opt to go as Principal of a different college. Further, the petitioner had already represented to the authorities during the pendency of the writ petition and the representation dated 19.06.2006 is very much pending before the respondents herein. In that view of the matter, without deciding this issue, a direction be given to the respondent to consider the said representation and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. In the light of the above discussion, the proceedings dated 12.05.1999 refusing to protect the pay of the petitioner is hereby set aside and the respondents are hereby directed to consider the representation dated 19.06.2006 of the petitioner and pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J July 21, 2009 KSH