IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD. Dated: November 9th 2010. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed and Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy W.P.No. 27705 of 2005 Between: The District Educational Officer, Hyderabad and others ..Petitioners And S. Vijaya Bhaskar ..Respondent GM & PSR, JJ. W.P.No. 27705 of 2005 Order (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J.) This writ petition is filed by the Government challenging the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in M.A.No. 652 of 2005 in O.A.No. 5362 of 2003 on 4-7-2005, granting pay protection to the applicant. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The facts of the case are that: The applicant was originally appointed as Police Constable in 1993; completed his M.A.(Telugu) and Telugu Pandit Course. Consequent ton issuance of notification by the District Selection Committee Teachers’ Recruitment, 2002, the applicant applied for the post of Language Pandit through proper channel; selected as Language Pandit and joined in the said post on 1.5.2003. As he was relived from his previous Post of Constable and joined in the Language Pandit Post; as the Last Pay Certificate was issued by previous employer, the applicant seeks pay protection under FR 22 (a) (iv) read with G.O.Ms.No. 7 dated:17.1.1995. 3. The Tribunal after considering the rival, passed the order impugned, holding that the applicant is entitled for the pay protection in the post of Language Pandit (Telugu Pandit Grade-II). 4. Now, the contention of the Learned Government Pleader is that as the applicant was appointed to a stipendary post and after completion of stipendary period only he was appointed to the post of Language Pandit (Telugu Pandit Grade-II) on regular basis, he is not entitled for protection of his pay under FR 22(a) (iv). The Learned Government also contends that as the petitioner was not selected and appointed through Public Service Commission he is not entitled to pay protection 5. The learned Government Pleader also drawn our attention to proviso 2 of sub-clause (iv) of FR-22(a) contending that the employees working in the Central Government, Universities, Aided Institutions etc., who are appointed in the Government service on selection by the A.P. Public Service Commission or District Selection Committee are not eligible for the benefit provided under sub-clause (iv) of the above Rules. Here it is pertinent to note that the applicant herein was earlier working as Police Constable (Civil) wherein his services were regularized. Thereafter, on selection by the District Selection Committee he was appointed as Language Pandit Grad-II, a regular post, and joined duty as such on 1.5.2003. The period of apprenticeship as per G.O.Ms.No.75 Education, dated:19.6.2001 would be counted for probation and he is deemed to be appointed on regular basis on completion of apprentice ship. After completion of apprenticeship he has been granted regular scale of pay attached to the post of Telugu Pandit Grade-II. In view of the above, it is clear that the second proviso to clause-iv of FR 22(a) is not attracted in the case of the applicant herein, as he has been selected from one Government service to the other (Police Department to the Education Department). 6. In view of the above discussion the writ petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result the writ petition is dismissed holding that the applicant is entitled for pay protection. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. November 9, 2010. *BVS _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J.