IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12864 of 1998 Between: K. Abdul Gani S/o Fakhruddin Saheb J.M.A. College, Raidurg, Ananthapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Secretary Education Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 J.M.A. College, rep. by Secretary & Correspondent Raidurg, Ananthapur District. .....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 issue a Writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus: i) declare the Procs.L.Dis.No.987/PC.II-4/92, dt: 25-5-1996 and the subsequent Procs.L.Disw.No.618/PC.II-4/97 dt: 18-3- 1997 of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, A.P. Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and offends Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; ii) declaring that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be granted the scale of pay in the cadre of Principal from 01.09.1979 to the date of retirement i.e., 31.07.1998 and for the grant of all consequential benefits; iii) direct the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the cadre of principal w.e.f., 01.09.1979 to the date of his retirement i.e., 31.07.1998 and grant all consequential benefits; iv) direct the Respondents to grant 18% interest on the amounts due to the petitioner on the basis of the above pay fixation; v) to grant such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in th circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.N.MOORTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner, a former principal of the third respondent college, seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dated 25-05-1996 issued in L.Dis.No.987/PC.II-4/92, and further proceedings dated 18-03-1997 issued in L.Dis.No.618/PC.II-4/97, by the first respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was working as lecturer in Persian language in J.M.A. College, Raidurg, Ananthapur District. With effect from 01-09- 1979, he was posted as Principal in the college and retired from service on 31-07-1988. After retirement of the petitioner from service, the third respondent college has sent proposals for fixation of his pay as Principal, but the same is rejected by the first respondent by impugned proceedings dated 25-05-1996. Mainly, the proposals sent by the third respondent college are rejected on the ground that the same are sent after the retirement of the petitioner from service, after a lapse of about 13 years after the petitioner is promoted as principal and further on the ground that he was not possessing the requisite qualification to hold the post of principal. Further requests made by the third respondent college on 01-07-1996, 07-12-1996 and 10-12-1996 were also rejected by proceedings dated 18-03-1997. 3. The case of the petitioner is that though he worked as Principal from 07-07-1979 to 31-07-1988, his pay was fixed only in the cadre of lecturer. It is submitted that third respondent college, after receiving orders fixing the pay of the petitioner in the post of lecturer, prepared the statements for fixation of pay in the cadre of principal and submitted the same to the Director of Higher Education; as such there was delay in sending the proposals. 4) In this case, it is to be seen that, even according to the third respondent college, the petitioner was retired from service in the year 1988. The promotion of the petitioner as principal in the third respondent college was not approved by the competent authority. Further, it is also the case of the respondents-authorities that the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of principal. When such is the case, the petitioner is not entitled for any fixation of pay for the period for which he is alleged to have worked as principal. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he possesses equivalent qualification to that of post- graduation, there is no material to prove that the qualification possessed by the petitioner is equivalent to post-graduation, which is the requisite qualification to hold the post of principal. In any event, as the petitioner kept quiet while he was in service and nearly after eight years of his retirement, he has come up with this petition, he is not entitled for grant of directions to fix his pay in the post of principal in the third respondent college. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J MARCH 12, 2009 KSH/MRR