THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24585 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in Sri Kandukuri Veeresalingam Theistic College, Rajahmundry on 30.08.1980 against a post, admitted to grant-in- aid. He continued in that post up to 12.08.1994. On that day, the Management of the institution promoted him to the post of Lecturer in Degree College, run by itself. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) constituted by the Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.127, dated 07.06.1993, interviewed the petitioner on 12.08.1994 and on the basis of the recommendation made by it, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, respondent No.2 herein, issued proceedings, dated 15.09.1995, promoting the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in Degree College, with prospective effect. Respondent No.4 addressed a letter, dated 19.12.1995, to respondent No.2 with a request to approve the promotion of the petitioner with effect from 12.08.1994 and to pay the salary for the period between 12.08.1994 and 15.09.1995. That request was rejected by respondent No.2, through order, dated 31.01.1996. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education. The petitioner served under the same management ever since his appointment on 30.08.1980. Up to August 1994, he functioned as Junior Lecturer against an aided vacancy. The same management established a Degree College. On finding that the petitioner is eligible to be promoted as a Lecturer in Degree College, the Management promoted him through proceedings, dated 12.08.1994. The relevant provisions of law mandate that promotion of a Junior Lecturer as a Lecturer in Degree College must be on the basis of evaluation by the DPC, particularly, where the posts are admitted to grant in aid. It was, in this context, that the DPC was constituted and it interviewed the petitioner on 12.08.1994. Consequently, orders were issued on 15.09.1995. The petitioner was not paid the salary admissible to a grant-in-aid vacancy by the Board of Intermediate Education subsequent to 12.08.1994, obviously because he ceased to function as Junior Lecturer. He was not released the grant-in-aid salary for the post of Lecturer in Degree College for the period anterior to 15.09.1995, since he came to be appointed only with effect from that date. The effort of the management to get the appointment of the petitioner as the Lecturer in Degree College retrospectively with effect from 12.08.1994 and to ensure that the salary is released for that period, did not materialise. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to cite any provision of law or a decided case, which enables the petitioner to get the approval or appointment as the Lecturer in Degree College with retrospective effect. Therefore, the view taken by respondent No.2 cannot be found fault with. Whatever be the justification in denying the retrospective promotion and salary for the corresponding period to the petitioner, he cannot be denied the continuity of service between the two spells namely Junior College Lecturer and Degree College Lecturer. Both the positions held by him were admitted to grant-in- aid. It is not as if he left the service or did not discharge his duties between 12.08.1994 and 15.09.1995. On account of lack of clarity in the matter, he was promoted in anticipation of the approval by the Government. This Court is of the view that though the petitioner may not be entitled for the benefit of salary and retrospective promotion, he cannot be denied continuity of service. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, directing that the service rendered by the petitioner between 12.08.1994 and 15.09.1995 shall be treated as regular and the same shall be enured to the petitioner for the purpose of retirement and other terminal benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:01.07.2010 kdl