THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR W.P.M.P.No.33314 of 2010 in W.P.NO.25534 of 2000 and W.P.NO.25534 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for three reliefs. The first is to declare the action of the respondents in not paying salaries due to the petitioner from 01.04.1998 as illegal and arbitrary. The second is to declare that the petitioner is entitled for absorption into aided services from the date of granting of minimum time scale of pay with effect from 07.10.1994 and the third is to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as class-IV employee in the third respondent college with effect from 07.10.1994 and grant of consequential benefits such as salary, emoluments and arrears of pay. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a contingent staff i.e., Gardener-cum-Waterboy in the third respondent college by its Secretary and Correspondent by his order dated 24.02.1987. This appointment was with the approval of the governing body of the said college and the Board of Intermediate Education and the appointment letter also contains an averment that the petitioner would be paid at the Government rates. 3. It is stated that by proceedings in R.C.No.691/JC-1/90 dated 06.10.1990 the second respondent (the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education) relying upon G.O.Ms.No.333 Education Department dated 21.10.1999 (G.O.Ms.No.333) and G.O.Ms.No.170 Education dated 12.07.1990 (G.O.Ms.No.170) mentioned that nine posts of teaching staff and twelve posts of non-teaching staff mentioned in Annexure-I to the said proceedings were admitted to grant-in-aid and that those working in those posts were also entitled to grant-in-aid and directed the Correspondent of the third respondent college to immediately submit the salary statements of the staff members claiming their pay in the minimum scales of pay prescribed for the respective posts. 4. The above proceedings also mention about Annexure-II in which the name of Sri K.Sankara Rao i.e. the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.4 as contingent staff and in the column relating to reasons for not admitting the said post to grant-in-aid it is stated that the appointment of the writ petitioner was during the period of ban. This assumes importance in the controversy raised in this writ petition. It was for the above reason the petitioner claimed the second relief in the writ petition which is to absorb him in aided service. 5. Subsequently, the second respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No.2453/JC5-3/94 dated 04.01.95 holding that the petitioner is entitled to a time scale of Rs.1375/- as he is working in a regular aided post in the third respondent college and directed it to pay the said scales with effect from 07.10.1994 as per G.O.Ms.No.362 Education Department dated 07.10.1994 (G.O.Ms.No.362). The petitioner was paid the said scale and he was being paid the same from time to time. The petitioner filed copies of the second respondent’s proceedings in Rc.No.2327/JC5-1/1995 dated 10.10.95, proceedings in Rc.No.2327/JC5-1/1995 dated 02.08.96 and proceedings in Rc.No.2327/JC5-1/95 dated 30.08.97 which all pertain to payment of the minimum time scale for each of the years covered by the said proceedings to the part-time Junior Lecturers working in several aided private junior colleges. All the above three proceedings also refer to G.O.Ms.No.362 only. 6. The plea of the petitioner is that he was also paid the minimum time scale earlier granted or directed to be paid to him right from 04.01.1995 and that subsequently from 01.04.1998 onwards he has not been paid the minimum payable in the time scale for the contingent staff and this is illegal. With these pleas, the petitioner claimed the three reliefs referred to supra. 7. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents by the Joint Director of Intermediate Education, A.P. His stand is that G.O.Ms.No.362 referred to in the above four proceedings of the second respondent right from 04.01.95 to 30.08.97 pertain to part- time Junior Lecturers working in private aided junior colleges but not to non-teaching staff in them and especially the contingent staff. He also stated that subsequently even G.O.Ms.No.362 was kept in abeyance through a Government Memo No.71/CE.III-1/94- 6, Edn., dt.6.1.95 with immediate effect until further orders and subsequently orders were issued through G.O.Ms.No.328 Education Department dated 15.10.97 (G.O.Ms.No.328) devising a scheme for regularization of part-time Junior Lecturers working in private aided colleges. He says that even G.O.Ms.No.328 is not applicable to contingent staff or other non-teaching staff. This is not controverted by the petitioner. 8. The further stand of the respondents is that contingent staff were ordered to be paid the minimum time scale especially in the case of petitioners on the assumption that G.O.Ms.No.362 is applicable to them and since it is not applicable the petitioner has not been paid the amounts subsequently. The plea of respondents is that the earlier proceedings sanctioning minimum time scale to the petitioner were issued by mistake and the petitioner was also not working in an aided post and even otherwise he was not absorbed in an aided post and therefore he is not entitled to any of the reliefs. 9. Sri Srinivasa Rao Karra the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously pointed out that in the first proceedings in Rc.No.691/JC5-1/90 dated 06.10.1990, G.O.Ms.No.333 and G.O.Ms.No.170 are quoted and it was by these two GOs certain teaching and non-teaching posts and three posts of contingent staff were admitted to grant-in-aid in the third respondent college and petitioner’s post is also one of the said three contingent staff posts and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the minimum scale payable. A perusal of the said GO copies filed by the petitioner would show that it is difficult to accept his contention. 10. As already mentioned, it is true that according to G.O.Ms.No.333 nine teaching posts and twelve non-teaching posts including those working in the said posts as shown in Annexure-I in the third respondent college were admitted to grant-in-aid, but annexure-II therein shows the posts that were not admitted to grant-in-aid. The petitioner’s post is one of them and his name is also mentioned there showing that he was appointed during ban period and therefore his post was not admitted to grant-in-aid. To overcome this difficulty the petitioner’s counsel filed a copy of G.O.Ms.No.170 referred to supra today as additional material papers. 11. The above G.O.Ms.No.170 refers to G.O.Ms.No.333 and says that some other posts are also admitted to grant-in-aid in the list of colleges annexed to the said GO and item No.19 therein which is ARR Junior College, Kolliparra, is the third respondent. It shows that among other posts three posts of contingent staff are also admitted to grant-in-aid but it does not contain the petitioner’s name or the names of other incumbents working in the said posts showing that they were also admitted to grant-in-aid. He may at best be treated as a person working in an aided post but without being admitted to grant-in-aid or absorbed therein. That is why he sought the relief of absorption into aided service and a further relief of regularization in a class-IV post. The petitioner was not able to show any right to grant those reliefs to him as they are within the exclusive purview of the authorities concerned. 12. The argument of the petitioner’s counsel is that the above three contingent posts covered by G.O.Ms.No.170 includes the post in which the petitioner is working and therefore he is eligible to draw that pay which is given to an aided post. This merely pertains only to the pay. It may be noted that admitting a post into grant-in-aid and absorbing an individual in such a post are two different aspects and when proposals go from the institution it is ultimately for the Government to decide whether such individual also is to be admitted to grant-in-aid as it is a matter which pertains to budget constraints and it has to be decided only by the Government. 13. It may also be noted that it is not the case of the petitioner that persons appointed subsequent to his appointment have been absorbed or regularized in a grant-in-aid post in violation of relevant GOs and he has been discriminated against and he has also failed to show that he is otherwise entitled or eligible to be admitted in a grant-in-aid post as of right or even eligible for regularization in a class-IV post. Thus G.O.Ms.No.333 and G.O.Ms.No.170 cannot come to the petitioner’s rescue for the reasons already recorded. 14. It is true that petitioner was ordered to be paid the minimum time scale payable for a person working in an aided grant-in-aid contingent post through the aforesaid four proceedings but that was done under a mistake on the premise that G.O.Ms.No.362 was applicable to the contingent staff also whereas it was not and that scheme was also subsequently abandoned. Hence payment of minimum time scale to the petitioner which was made earlier was stopped as it was made under a mistake and the authorities are within their right to stop it even as no estoppel can be inferred against a statute and the rules framed thereunder governing admission of posts and incumbents of the said posts into grant-in- aid. 15. Thus for the aforesaid reasons it follows that unfortunately in this case the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in this writ petition. 16. The petitioner’s counsel lastly relied upon U.O.Note No.24714-A/224/A3/PC.III/98 dated 21.08.1998 extending the application of the terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance Department dated 24.02.1994 to non-teaching staff working in private aided colleges/ schools which are admitted to grant-in-aid and requested that the respondents be directed to consider the case of petitioner for regularization under the said G.O.Ms.No.212. For that direction petitioner also filed W.P.M.P.No.33314 of 2010. If the petitioner’s case can be considered by the concerned authorities under the said GO as per the above UO Note as pleaded by him, it is always open for the petitioner to make an application in that behalf to the concerned authority and the said authority may dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. WPMP No.33314 of 2010 is disposed of accordingly and the other WPMPs pending, if any, are closed. No costs. _______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 26th November 2012 CVRK