V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE Principal secretary to Government, Department of higher Education and the Commissioner of collegiate Education, Government of Andhra pradesh are the appellants in this writ appeal. The first respondent s writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this court granting the relief as prayed by him in WP No. 21507 of 1999. It is appropriate to refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as physical Instructor by the Correspondent, v. S. R. and N. V. R. College, Tenali, the second respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the College ). At the relevant time, as per the sanctioned strength in physical Education Department, there is one post of Physical Director and as many posts as are required of Assistant Physical directors. Both these posts carry different scales of pay. On 28-6-1983 by virtue of the orders issued in G. O. Rt. No. 855 the post of Assistant Physical Director held by the petitioner was admitted to grant-in-aid with effect from 1-6-1983. The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide orders issued in g. O. 169, dated 7-7-1990 introduced Career advancement Scheme (CAS) by which a lecturer on completion of eight years of service was entitled to pay scale of rs. 3,000-5000 and those Lecturers who completed 16 years of service were entitled to selection made at Rs. 3,700- 5,700. As per paragraph 3 of the said GO. The service rendered as Assistant Lecturers in government Degree College is also reckoned for the purpose of counting 8/16 years of service. The orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 169, dated 7-7-1990 were also made applicable to physical education personnel and Librarians in Government Degree colleges and Private Aided Degree Colleges. ( 3 ) WHILE the matters stood thus, the government issued orders in G. O. Ms. No. 136, dated 6-4-1995 upgrading the post of Assistant Physical Director in Private degree Colleges as Physical Director with effect from 6-4-1995 subject to the incumbent possessing requisite qualifications. Those persons holding the posts of Assistant physical Directors with requisite qualifications were upgraded in UGC Pay scale of 1986 at Rs. 2,200-4,000. The other unqualified Assistant Physical Directors were allowed to State pay scales. The orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 136, dated 6-4-1995 were later clarified by G. O. Ms. Those persons holding the posts of Assistant physical Directors with requisite qualifications were upgraded in UGC Pay scale of 1986 at Rs. 2,200-4,000. The other unqualified Assistant Physical Directors were allowed to State pay scales. The orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 136, dated 6-4-1995 were later clarified by G. O. Ms. No. 126, dated 16-5-1996 to the effect that the assistant Physical Directors, whose posts were upgraded with effect from 16-11-1984 would be notionally entitled to UGC Pay scales from 16-11-1984 with mandatory benefits from 6-4-1995. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired with effect from 30-6-1996 after attaining the age of superannuation. In pursuance of the orders issued in G. O. Ms. No. 136, dated 6-4-1995 and G. O. Ms. No. 126, dated 16-5-1996 the Commissioner issued proceedings on 7-9-1997 upgrading the post of Assistant physical Director held by the petitioner as Physical Director with effect from 6-11-1984 and the Correspondent of the college was requested to take necessary action to fix the pay of the petitioner as directed by the Government in the two GOs referred to hereinabove. ( 4 ) THE Government further issued g. O. Ms. No. 208, dated 29-6-1999, notifying their decision to extend the revised UGC scales of Pay to the Teachers, Librarians and Physical Educational Personnel in the universities and Colleges. By the said GO, the Government of A. P. communicated a. P. Revised UGC Scales of Pay, 1996. The petitioner was allowed these pay scales with effect from 1-1-1996 duly fixing his pay at Rs. 8,000-13,500. After awarding the benefit of revision, the petitioner filed writ petition being WP No. 21507 of 1999 praying for a direction to the respondents to count the petitioner s services with effect from 1-2-1970 for the purpose of giving cas scales and fix his pay of rs. 3,700-5,700 with effect from 1-1-1986 and the corresponding UGC Pay Scales of 1996 with effect from 1-1-1996 and also to pay arrears of pay and allowances. ( 5 ) IN the writ petition he contended that for the purpose of selection grade scale/special scale his services ought to have been counted from 1-1-1970 that he was subjected to discrimination, in that, the senior scale/selection grade was provided to the post of Lecturer and other similarly situated Physical Directors which was denied to him. ( 5 ) IN the writ petition he contended that for the purpose of selection grade scale/special scale his services ought to have been counted from 1-1-1970 that he was subjected to discrimination, in that, the senior scale/selection grade was provided to the post of Lecturer and other similarly situated Physical Directors which was denied to him. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents inter alia contending that the post of Physical Instructor is not equivalent to the post of Physical Director, that the post of Assistant Physical Director was upgraded as Physical Director only with effect from 6-4-1995, that Assistant Physical directors possessing requisite qualifications were only allowed UGC pay scales 1986 by upgrading their posts as Physical Directors and that as the petitioner s post was upgraded as Physical Director with effect from 16-11-1984 the petitioner was notionally allowed 1986 UGC Pay Scales with effect from 16-11-1984 with mandatory benefit from 6-4-1995 and that the petitioner is not entitled for counting his service with effect from 1-1-1970 for the purpose of senior scale/selection grade contemplated under ugc 1986 as well as UGC 1996 pay scales. ( 6 ) THE learned single Judge recorded a finding that the post of Physical Director is similar to the post of Instructors of physical Education. On such premise the learned single Judge held that the petitioner is entitled to count the service rendered by him as Instructor of Physical Education for reckoning the period 8/16 years for the purpose of senior scale/selection grade. The learned single Judge also held that the assistant Lecturers/assistant Physical directors, who are appointed and working in the lower cadre prior to 1-4-1976 were entitled to count their service rendered by them in the lower cadre for reckoning their period of 8/16 years as Lecturers/physical directors. Reliance was placed on G. O. Ms. No. 28, dated 22-1-1999 wherein purportedly orders were issued for reckoning service rendered in the cadre of Junior lecturers for claiming CAS. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge directing the Commissioner to refix the petitioner in the UGC Scales of Pay 1976 and 1986 as adopted by the government in G. O. Ms. No. 520, dated 15-12-1988 and gave eight weeks time to the Government to comply with the orders. The writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge directing the Commissioner to refix the petitioner in the UGC Scales of Pay 1976 and 1986 as adopted by the government in G. O. Ms. No. 520, dated 15-12-1988 and gave eight weeks time to the Government to comply with the orders. ( 7 ) IN this writ appeal, the learned government Pleader for Higher Education submits that the impugned judgment surfers from grave error, in that this Court could not have directly issued a mandamus to the government to fix UGC Pay Scales of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the posts of Physical Instructor and Physical director are not identical and equivalent and in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Director, the learned single Judge misinterpreted G. O. Ms. No. 855, dated 28-6-1983. It is also further submitted that as per the provisions of a. P. Private Aided Educational Staff (Regulation of Pay) Act, 2000 (Act 9 of 2000) the petitioner s services with effect from 1-2-1970 cannot be taken into account for the purpose of CAS and therefore the mandamus issued by the learned single judge is contrary to law. The learned government Pleader also submits that the Government awarded senior scales to 12 Physical Training Instructors working in various colleges vide G. O. Ms. No. 28, dated 22-1-1999 as those Physical Instructors were qualified entitling them for senior scales of pay And therefore consideration of discrimination would not arise. ( 8 ) THE writ petitioner Sri V. Shankarlal has appeared in person and made submissions in an admirable manner. He placed reliance on G. O. Ms. No. 855 and submits that the post of Assistant Physical director in the college was upgraded as physical Director and therefore he is entitled for counting his service with effect from 1-1-1970. He also submits that similar benefit was given to large number of Physical instructors counting their service for the purpose of CAS from the date of initial appointment and therefore the same cannot be denied to him. ( 9 ) THE short point that falls for consideration in the background of the pleadings and submissions is whether or not the petitioner, who was admittedly appointed as Physical Training Instructor or Physical director in the scale of pay of Rs. ( 9 ) THE short point that falls for consideration in the background of the pleadings and submissions is whether or not the petitioner, who was admittedly appointed as Physical Training Instructor or Physical director in the scale of pay of Rs. 150-200 is entitled for the scale of pay prescribed for the post of Physical Director by treating the post of Physical Instructor as equivalent to Physical Director. All other questions that fall for consideration are incidental to this question. These incidental questions are whether the petitioner s service as physical Instructor should be counted for the purpose of revision of pay scales of physical Directors as per the UGC scales of 1976, 1986 and 1996. ( 10 ) BEFORE 1-4-1966, the Physical education personnel in Government colleges and aided colleges fell in three categories. The Physical Education teachers with PG diploma or Certificate or Degree in Physical education were designated as Physical director, and were given the pay scale of rs. 200-500. The Physical Education teachers not possessing any of the qualifications like PG Diploma or Certificate in Physical Education were also designated as Physical Directors and were given the scale of pay of Rs. 200-500. The other category called Physical Training Instructors were in the pay scale of Rs. 150-200. In 1966, the University Grants Commission recommended revision of scales of pay to physical Education personnel w. e. f. 1-4-1966. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in their orders in G. O. Ms. No. 2123, dated 11-12-1970 also accepted the recommendations of the Government of India and ordered to give effect to the revised UGC scales of pay w. e. f. 1-4-1966 as under: ( 21 ) IN Shiv Kumar Dutta v. Union of india, (1997) 3 SCC 545 , the Supreme Court made similar observations, and they read thus: nomenclature and fitment is one of executive policy of the Government. Unless the action is arbitrary or there is invidious discrimination between persons similarly situated, doing same type of work, as is pointed out, it would be difficult for the Courts to go into the question of equation of posts or fitment into a particular scale of pay. They must be left to be decided by the Expert committee and Government. The Courts cannot go into them and evaluate the job criteria and scales of pay prescribed for each category. They must be left to be decided by the Expert committee and Government. The Courts cannot go into them and evaluate the job criteria and scales of pay prescribed for each category. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in refusing to go into the question. ( 22 ) BY the impugned judgement, the learned single Judge equated the post of assistant Director of Physical Education as assistant Lecturer and issued a mandamus directing the respondents to refix the salary of the petitioner in revised UGC pay scales of 1976, 1986 and 1996. In our considered opinion, the impugned judgment suffers from error for such direction could not have been issued in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, we have demonstrated that the petitioner is not entitled to count his unaided service as Assistant Director because the post of Physical Director itself was created only in June, 1983. Further, the petitioner was given all the benefits in accordance with the various Government orders after upgrading the post of Assistant director as Physical Director, and no injustice was meted out to the petitioner. We further observe that mere admission of the petitioner to 1966, 1976, 1986 and 1996 revised UGC pay scales, does not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for counting pre 1983 service for the purpose of Career advancement Scheme. In the background of Career Advancement Scheme, it is not permissible to agree with the petitioner on this score. ( 23 ) IN the result, for the reasons aforementioned, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.