THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 6288 of 2006 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the order passed by 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 26.1.2001 at the instance of Commissioner of Collegiate Education, 2nd respondent, in proceedings No. Rc.No. 252/Admn.-VI-1/2000-01 dated 23.8.2001 regarding approval of services of the petitioner with effect from 26.8.2001 instead of 6.4.2001 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It appears, petitioners have been working as Lecturers in respondent No.4-College and when their services were not regularized, they have filed earlier W.P. No. 370 of 2000 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 6.2.2001 directing the respondents to consider regularization of services of the petitioners. In obedience to the same, the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, vide proceedings dated 20.3.2001 directed the correspondent to appoint petitioners and others as lecturers in the respective faculties. Thus, petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in the respective faculties on 6.4.2001 subject to approval by the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, A.P., Hyderabad. Their services were approved vide proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education on 26.8.2001. However, the UGC scales are not granted to the petitioners on the ground that their appointments have been approved on 26.8.2001 i.e. after 16.7.2001 and as per G.O.Ms.No. 140 dated 3.10.2005, only those who have appointed up to 16.7.2001 are allowed UGC pay scales. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled for U.G.C. Scales since the date of their appointment is6.4.2001 but not 26.8.2001 as contended by the respondents and, therefore, the action of the respondents in not extending U.G.C. Scales to them is arbitrary and illegal. G.O.Ms.No.140 dated 3.10.2005 reads as follows: “The matter has been examined in consultation with the Director of Collegiate Education, AP, Hyderabad. After careful consideration of the matter, Government have decided to extend similar benefit as extended to the staff of Government Junior Colleges vide Government Order at reference first read above to the corresponding categories of employees working in Private Aided Colleges. Government accordingly direct that further to the benefit extended vide Government Order second read above, to the Lecturers/Librarians/Physical Directors who are on duty as on 1.1.1986, those who are regularly recruited in Private Aided Degree Colleges after 1.1.1986 and up to 16.7.2001, and drawing State Scales of Pay, be exempted from passing the National Eligibility Test/State Level Eligibility Test and they may be allowed UGC Pay Scales. The monetary benefit by virtue of the above exemption, shall be allowed from the date of issue of these orders. The Lecturers/Librarians/Physical Directors, who are appointed in Private Aided Degree Colleges after 16.7.2001 shall acquire NET/SLET for extension of UGC Pay Scales, as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No. 208 Edn., dated 29.6.1999”. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners were appointed on 6.4.2001 but their appointment was approved by the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education on 26.8.2001 and, therefore, they are entitled for U.G.C. Pay-scales. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously contended that in view of the above Clause (4) of G.O.Ms.No.140, petitioners are not entitled for U.G.C. Scales since their appointment was approved on 26.8.2001 i.e. after 16.7.2001 though they were appointed on 6.4.2001, which was subject to approval. Therefore, it must be deemed that they have been appointed only when their appointment was approved on 26.8.2001 and not prior to that and thus, they are not entitled for the benefit of the said G.O. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on an order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3871 of 1998 dated 28.4.2000 wherein it was held: “Nothing has been placed before this Court to show any legal bar from granting such a relief, when the petitioner was appointed after undertaking the selection process duly and he joined duty on 18.2.1993 pursuant to the appointment order, which specifically provides for the payment of salaries in the scale of Rs.2200-2000, in ordinary course, in the absence of any legal bar he is entitled to be paid the salary as per the time scale from the date of his appointment. There is no point in granting the UGC scale from the date, which is altogether different from the date of his appointment. I, therefore, see a legitimate ground for the petitioner to approach this Court and the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 in spite of the respondent college recommended the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to grant UGC scale to the petitioner from the date of his appointment i.e. 18.2.1993 onwards. The petitioner is entitled to arrears with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. No costs”. The said order was further confirmed in W.A. No. 1299 of 2003 vide judgment dated 28.8.2003, as under: “It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was duly qualified. Since management had not followed the rule of reservation, the action of the management was found to be faulty and later on when approval of the appointment of the writ petitioner was sought by the management, approval was granted by the appellant subject to the management clearing all the carry forward backlog vacancies in the particular reserved category. Such undertaking of the management having been accepted by the appellant, it has the effect of regularization of writ petitioner’s services from the date of his initial appointment. On that analogy learned single judge was justified in granting relief as prayed for. We do not find any ground to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the learned single Judge partly allowing the review application filed by the appellant in the writ petition. The appeal is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed”. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of U.G.C. Scales since their appointment was after 16.7.2001, cannot be countenanced. The regular appointment itself was made on 6.4.2001 in pursuance to the order passed in W.P. No. 370 of 2000 dated 6.2.2001. Therefore, in this case, even the approval had become a formality. Thus, it must be deemed that the petitioners were appointed on 6.4.2001, when it was recommended by the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education, i.e. prior to 16.7.2001 and, therefore, they are entitled for the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.140 Higher Education (CE.II-1) Department dated 3.10.2005. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as above. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date:15-4-2010. MVB.