APHC010602332004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 17880 of 2004 Bench Sr.No:-12 [3506] R. PurnaChandrarao, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner Vs. Sir C. Ramalinga Reddy College and another ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. P. V. Ramana Advocates for Respondents: Mr. Y. Sitharam representing Mr. C.Venkaiah–R1, GP for Higher Education CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 22nd November, 2025. ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ Order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the first respondent dated 30.08.2004 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of the scale attached to the post of Placement Officer as provided in 1986 and the corresponding revised pay-scale of U.G.C 1996 on par with Smt.D.Lalitha Rani as highly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 39,14,16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequentially to direct the respondents to grant pay-scales attached to the post of Placement Officer w.e.f. 29.11.1994 to 13.10.2003 after deducting the pay-scale of the lecturer with all consequential benefits and to pass…” 2. The petitioner while working as Lecturer in the 1stRespondent-College, which is a self-financing institution, in pursuance to the advertisement for filling up the post of Placement Officer, had participated in the said process and was 2 CGRJ WP_17880_2004 ultimately selected and got promoted to the post of Placement Officer on 29.11.1994. He continued to work as Placement Officer in the 1st respondent College from 29.11.1994 till 13.10.2003. The petitioner claims to have been paid lesser scales than those he was entitled to, therefore, made a representation dated 11.08.2004, to the 1st Respondent, seeking the pay scale prescribed in terms of G.O.Rt.No.1069, dated 20.09,1996, as per which the U.G.C. revised payscale was to be implemented. 3. The 1st Respondent eventually rejected the said representation, by virtue of order dated 30.08.2004. Assailing the same, present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned rejection Order is arbitrary and unsustainable, inasmuch as the petitioner, having been selected and promoted as Placement Officer, was required to be paid the regular scale attached to the said post in terms of G.O.Rt.No.1069, dated 20.09.1996. It is further submitted that petitioner was entitled to the revised U.G.C. pay scales of 1996, whereas, the 1st respondent had paid him only a meagre amount that too on honorarium basis. It is also stated that similarly situated Placement Officer, namely, Mrs.D.Lalitha Rani, has been extended the benefit of revised U.G.C. pay scale; therefore, he claimed parity along with her for the purpose of implementation of the pay scale. However, the 1st respondent summarily rejected his request by virtue of the impugned proceedings, which is clearly arbitrary and illegal. 3 CGRJ WP_17880_2004 5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent-College, on the other hand, contended that the representation of the petitioner was rejected with valid and cogent reasons. One of the reasons stated was that the institution was solely running on self-finance, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim for U.G.C. pay scale and also take shelter of G.O.Rt.No.1069, dated 20.09,1996. Further that Mrs.D.Lalitha Rani had worked in the Department of Commerce and Management at Andhra University; therefore, she had been extended the pay scale as she was falling under the aegis of Andhra University. In the present case, since the petitioner had been appointed with the 1st Respondent- College, which is a self-financing institution, such appointment would be purely a contractual engagement and hence he was paid the remuneration as agreed under the contract. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of the respective counsels. 7. The petitioner, admittedly, was appointed as Lecturer in the 1st respondent-College, which is a private institution. He was later selected and promoted as Placement Officer on 29.11.1994. The said appointment was purely on contractual basis. He worked in the 1st Respondent institution till 13.10.2003, thereafter he got relieved from the said institution, in order to join as Professor and Principal in a different institution at Khammam. After getting relieved, he made a representation dated 11.08.2004, claiming for U.G.C. 4 CGRJ WP_17880_2004 revised pay scale to the post of Placement Officer for his tenure and also to be on par with Mrs.D.Lalitha Rani. The 1st Respondent after considering the said representation, rejected the same by virtue of order dated 30.08.2004, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 8. From the record, it appears that the 1st Respondent-College has rejected the petitioner’s representation on the ground that petitioner was engaged as Placement Officer, on honorarium basis, for the additional work entrusted to him and therefore, he was not entitled for claiming U.G.C. pay scale. Coming to the aspect of parity, since Mrs.D.Lalitha Rani had worked at Andhra University, he cannot equate along with her for claiming the U.G.C. pay scale. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned to by the 1st Respondent-College while rejecting the claim of the petitioner do not suffer from any infirmity. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, the Writ Petition hereby stands dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. SSN