V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order as they involve common questions of fact and law. ( 2 ) WRIT Petition No. 15849 of 1999 is filed by Sri N. Gopi Kumar praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent, namely, the director, Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences (SVIMS), Tirupati, in not fixing his pay in the scale of pay of Rs. 2195-4560 as per revised pay scales-1993 as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of india. He also seeks a consequential direction to the respondent to refix his scale in the scale of pay of Rs. 2195-4560, i. e. , the scale of pay applicable to the post of A. C. Plant-cum-Generator Operator ( ac Operator for brevity) held by him with effect from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits. Writ Petition No. 15993 of 1999 is filed by one Sri K. K. Thulasiram for a similar relief. Before giving a resume of the dates and events leading to filing of the cases, it is necessary to notice that in Writ Petition No. 15849 of 1999 this Court issued interim order in W. P. M. P. No. 19556 of 1999 on 26. 11. 1999 directing the respondent to pay salary to the petitioner in the scale of pay of rs. 2195-4560. The petitioner filed a Contempt Case alleging violation of the order of this Court. Therefore, the respondent issued proceedings dt. 10. 4. 2001 sanctioning the scale of pay of Rs. 2195-4560 subject to final orders in the writ petition. By reason of the proceedings of the respondent dt10. 4. 2001, it is stated that Gopi Kumar is drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs. 2195-4560. The respondent notified two posts of AC Operators to the Employment Officer, chittoor. The latter sponsored the names of the petitioners herein. The petitioners were interviewed on 17. 11. 1992 and as a furtherance thereof Gopi kumar was appointed by proceedings dt. 11. 2. 1993 as AC Operator in the pay scale of Rs. 780-1275. He joined duty on 17. 2. 1993. He made representations requesting the scale of pay of Rs. 1100-2500 or the pay as applicable to the post of AC Operator. 11. 1992 and as a furtherance thereof Gopi kumar was appointed by proceedings dt. 11. 2. 1993 as AC Operator in the pay scale of Rs. 780-1275. He joined duty on 17. 2. 1993. He made representations requesting the scale of pay of Rs. 1100-2500 or the pay as applicable to the post of AC Operator. He was asked to produce educational qualification certificates and experience certificate which he did. No action was taken, but the respondent issued proceedings dt. 24. 6. 1996 regularising his services as AC operator with effect from 17. 3. 1993 and also declared him as approved probationer with effect from 17. 2. 1995. In the meanwhile, the Government of andhra Pradesh revised the scales of pay to its employees with effect from 1. 1. 1993 and Governing Council of SVIMS resolved on 3. 4. 1994 to implement revised scales of pay. The respondent for the purpose of fixation of pay classified AC Operators as Grade-I and Grade-II in the scale of pay of rs. 2195-4560 and Rs. 1665-3200 respectively. The petitioner alleges that he was appointed as AC Operator and his pay should be fixed in the scale of pay of rs. 2195-4560. However, the respondent fixed the scale of pay of Rs. 1665-3200. The petitioner made out grievance before the General Manager (Operations) pursuant to a Circular dt. 26. 8. 1998 calling upon the employees to make representations regarding anomalies in the fixation of pay scales. The Head of the Department submitted a report to the respondent recommending the scale of pay of Rs. 2195-4560. This was not done. However, in the case of many others certain recommendations made by the Head of the Department were adopted and scales of pay were revised. The petitioner therefore brought to the notice of the respondent the anomaly and made representations, in vain. In Writ Petition No. 15993 of 1999 the facts are similar with a little variation. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to interview call letter the petitioner appeared on 17. 11. 1992 before the Selection Committee. He was selected and appointed as Assistant AC Operator by proceedings dt. 6. 4. 1993. He joined duty on 8. 4. 1993. He also made a representation to the respondent requesting scale of pay of Rs. 1100-2050. Though he was asked to submit educational qualification certificates along with experience certificate, nothing was done. 11. 1992 before the Selection Committee. He was selected and appointed as Assistant AC Operator by proceedings dt. 6. 4. 1993. He joined duty on 8. 4. 1993. He also made a representation to the respondent requesting scale of pay of Rs. 1100-2050. Though he was asked to submit educational qualification certificates along with experience certificate, nothing was done. In the mean while, his services were regularised with effect from 8. 4. 1993 and also he was declared as approved probationer with effect from 8. 4. 1995. He made representation to the respondent alleging that he was called for interview for the post of AC Operator. He was regularised as such and his probation was declared as AC Operator and therefore he is entitled for the scale of pay of Rs. 2195-4560. As no action was taken, he filed the writ petition. This Court by order dt. 16. 10. 2001 in W. P. M. P. No. 19734 of 1999 issued interim orders directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner to pay salary as per the recommendations of the General Manager (Operations) SVIMS. In obedience thereof, the respondent issued proceedings dt. 15. 4. 2002 rejecting the request of the petitioner to grant scale of pay of rs. 2195-4560. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed W. P. M. P. No. 28548 of 2002 for amendment of the writ petition so as to challenge the proceedings dt. 15. 4. 2002 rejecting his request. In the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 15849 of 1999 all the petition averments are denied. It is stated that the complaints made by non-faculty staff regarding anomalies were placed before the Executive Board on 17. 12. 1998 when it was directed to place the matter again in the month of february, 1999. In the meanwhile, the Government directed to handover SVIMS to tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) and therefore the meeting could not take place. Adverting to various instances of giving higher scale of pay to certain employees, the Director justified the same mainly contending that the scales of pay of those persons were fixed as per Resolution of the Executive Board deciding to implement the revised pay scales to the employees of SVIMS. It is further averred that General Manager (Operations) has no authority to fix scale of pay to the petitioners. Any recommendation made by the General Manager cannot be considered. It is further averred that General Manager (Operations) has no authority to fix scale of pay to the petitioners. Any recommendation made by the General Manager cannot be considered. The Director of SVIMS is only competent authority to fix scale of pay for the post of AC Plant Operator, which does not carry scale of pay of Rs. 2195-4560 as alleged. ( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 15993 of 1999 similar averments are made. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V. Jagapati submits that the respondent issued Employment Notification for appointment of AC Plant Operators in the scale of pay of Rs. 1010-1800. Gopi Kumar was appointed as AC Plant operator and he was regularised and his probation was also declared as such. Likewise, Thulasiram though was appointed as Assistant AC Operator, was regularised and his probation was declared as AC Operator. Therefore, the action of the respondent in treating both of them as Assistant AC Operators is illegal. He also submits that though initially both of them were given the pay of Rs. 780/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 780-1275, by reason of Resolution No. 16, dt. 3. 4. 1994 passed by the Governing Council of SVIMS, revised scales of pay were implemented and for the post of AC Operator Grade-I scale of pay of Rs. 2195-4560 and for AC Operator Grade-II scale of pay of Rs. 1665-3200 were given. The petitioners were also given scale of pay of Rs. 1665-3200 with effect from the date of appointment and arrears were paid. He submits that when they were appointed in the posts of AC Operators, which require qualification of ITI certificate, they ought to have been given the scale of pay attached to AC operator Grade-I in the scale of pay of Rs. 2195-4560. He also placed strong reliance on the recommendations made by the General Manager (Operations) on 10. 9. 1998 in support of his submission. He submits that the order passed by svims on 15. 4. 2002 in the case of Thulasiram treating him as AC Operator grade-II is illegal and unsustainable. ( 7 ) MS. Sarada learned Standing Counsel for SVIMS submits that though Employment notification was issued for appointment of AC Operators in the scale of pay of rs. 1010-1800 after selections both the petitioners were appointed as Assistant ac Operators. 4. 2002 in the case of Thulasiram treating him as AC Operator grade-II is illegal and unsustainable. ( 7 ) MS. Sarada learned Standing Counsel for SVIMS submits that though Employment notification was issued for appointment of AC Operators in the scale of pay of rs. 1010-1800 after selections both the petitioners were appointed as Assistant ac Operators. As per the resolution of the Governing Council implementation of revised pay scales to the AC Operators in SVIMS is rejected, but scale of pay rs. 1675-3200 applicable to AP Operator Grade-II was given to them and arrears were paid. She also submits that when appointment order was issued to Gopi kumar by mistake it was given as if he is appointed as AC Operator and in fact it is a typing mistake. Gopi Kumar was appointed as only Assistant AC Operator. ( 8 ) IN any event, she submits that as both of them were appointed as Assistant AC operators in the scale of pay of Rs. 7801275, they cannot be treated as AC operators Grade-I which carries scale of pay of Rs. 2195-4560. She has produced the entire record relating to the appointment of the petitioners and contends that when the orders were passed regularising and declaring the period of probation no Rules were framed and under a mistaken impression they were termed as AC Operators. She would contend that as they accepted the scale of pay of rs. 780-1250 no prejudice is caused to them if the scale of pay of Rs. 1665-3200 was given to them. She also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in U. P. STATE CEMENT CORPN. v. B. K. TIWARI in support of the submission that when the petitioners are appointed to a particular pay scale, they cannot claim revised pay scale in respect of other pay scales. ( 9 ) BEFORE considering various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to notice that SVIMS was established as a Statutory institution. Staff Rules were not framed. Therefore the Director of the institute undertook the selection process statedly in accordance with the Rules governing TTD. When Governing Council of SVIMS in its meeting held on 3. 4. 1994 resolved to implement the scale of pay to the employees of all non-teaching posts, in as many as thirty seven categories revised scales were fixed. Therefore the Director of the institute undertook the selection process statedly in accordance with the Rules governing TTD. When Governing Council of SVIMS in its meeting held on 3. 4. 1994 resolved to implement the scale of pay to the employees of all non-teaching posts, in as many as thirty seven categories revised scales were fixed. The governing Council fixed the scales of pay. While communicating the same, the director of SVIMS by proceedings dt. 7. 9. 1994 informed all the staff members working in SVIMS that pay of the existing incumbents will be fixed taking into account the pay they are presently drawing. This has an important bearing and has to be kept in mind while considering the points raised for consideration. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Employment notification was issued inviting list of candidates from the District Employment exchange for the posts of AC Operators in the pay scale of pay of Rs. 1010-1800 and therefore appointment of Thulasiram as Assistant AC Operator itself is illegal. He further contends that whatever be the case, the services of both the petitioners were regularised with effect from the date of their joining duty and their probation was also declared with effect from the date on which they completed the period of two years of service. The learned counsel therefore contends that they shall be given higher scale of pay. The submission is devoid of any merit. In the case of Thulasiram the petitioner in W. P. No. 15993 of 1999 though he was called for interview on 17. 11. 1992 for the post of AC Operator, he was appointed as Assistant AC Operator in the pay of Rs. 780/- in the scale of rs. 780-1275. In the case of Gopi Kumar the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 15849 of 1999 the original file produced before me would show that the Director approved appointment order appointing Gopi Kumar as Assistant AC Operator, but curiously when the order was issued from the Office of the Director, it was shown that as if he was appointed as AC Operator. Whatever be the case, when both the petitioners were called for interview, in the interview call letters scale of pay attached to the post of AC Operator or Assistant AC Operator is not mentioned. Whatever be the case, when both the petitioners were called for interview, in the interview call letters scale of pay attached to the post of AC Operator or Assistant AC Operator is not mentioned. However, when they were appointed, the appointment letter clearly mentions that they are appointed in the scale of pay of Rs. 780-1275. Therefore, the submission that they should be deemed to have been appointed in the scale of pay of Rs. 1010-1800 cannot be accepted. ( 10 ) SECONDLY, when the Governing Council of SVIMS resolved to implement the revision of pay scales and also fixed scale of pay for various posts both the petitioners were placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 1665-3200 and appropriate proceedings were also issued by giving benefit of revision of pay scales at Rs. 1665-3200 with effect from their respective dates of appointment. Necessary entries were made in the service registers. Indeed, in the service register of Thulasiram at page 10, the signature of Thulasiram was also obtained when scale of pay was fixed at rs. 1665-3200 with effect from 9. 4. 1993. This would clearly show that both the petitioners were appointed to the post in the scale of pay of Rs. 1665-3200. As contended by the learned Standing Counsel for SVIMS the petitioners have accepted the scale of pay of Rs. 1665-3200 from the date of their appointment and then made representations. In the representations made by Thulasiram dt. 5. 7. 1996, 5. 5. 1997, 4. 8. 1997 and joint representation made by both petitioners on 18. 4. 1997 they only requested that their case may be sympathetically considered and they may be placed in the scale of pay of rs. 2195-4560 or Rs. 1875-3750 treating them as appointed originally in the scale of pay of Rs. 1010-1800. In the representation dt. 8. 7. 1999 of Gopi Kumar he even contended that as he qualified ITI he may be given scale of pay of Rs. 2175-4560 on par with one G. Subrahmanyam, instrument mechanic. A reading of the representations made by the petitioners would show that in fact they accepted fixation of pay scales of Rs. 1665-3200, but they made a grievance that similarly placed ITI qualified technical people are placed in the higher scale of pay of rs. 2195-4560 and therefore they may also be given same scale of pay. A reading of the representations made by the petitioners would show that in fact they accepted fixation of pay scales of Rs. 1665-3200, but they made a grievance that similarly placed ITI qualified technical people are placed in the higher scale of pay of rs. 2195-4560 and therefore they may also be given same scale of pay. They also contended that AC Operator in Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences and Generator operator in Sri Padmavati Mahila University were given scale of pay of rs. 1875-3750 which correspond to previous scale of pay of Rs. 1010-1800. Be it noted, as per the revised scales of pay of staff of Government Departments a copy of which is placed before me, scale of pay of AC Operator is Rs. 1010-1800 and it was revised in 1993 as Rs. 1875-3750. From this one thing becomes clear that the petitioners never made any grievance about the appointment orders placing them in the scale of pay of Rs. 780-1275. They only complained that similarly placed ITI Certificate holders are given higher scale of pay and therefore they should also be given higher scale. This was rejected in the case of Thulasiram by proceedings dt. 15. 4. 2002 which is challenged in Writ Petition no. 15993 of 1999 by way of amendment. ( 11 ) IN the proceedings dt. 15. 4. 1992 the respondent adverted to this aspect in the following manner. Further, in Government there is no post called AC Plant-cum-Generator Operator and as such no prescribed scale can be demanded by the petitioner. As it is an exclusive post in the Institute and as an autonomous body the Institute has the right to fix up designation and the scale basing on its requirements and financial status. Even while giving revised pay scales of 1993 the corresponding scale of pay is only Rs. 1475/ -. But the Respondent with a view to encourage the petitioner has given the scale of Rs. 1665/- instead of Rs. 1475/ -. This was given during 1993 itself. Now Sri K. M. Thulasiram demanding rs. 2195-4560 scale of pay is not correct. . . . Moreover, the post of AC plant-cum-Generator Operator was divided into Grade-I and Grade-II keeping in view the promotional channel. Sri K. K. Thulasiram was appointed only as assistant AC Plant-cum-Generator Operator in the scale of pay of Rs. 1665-3200 without grade. Now Sri K. M. Thulasiram demanding rs. 2195-4560 scale of pay is not correct. . . . Moreover, the post of AC plant-cum-Generator Operator was divided into Grade-I and Grade-II keeping in view the promotional channel. Sri K. K. Thulasiram was appointed only as assistant AC Plant-cum-Generator Operator in the scale of pay of Rs. 1665-3200 without grade. It automatically comes under Grade -II with the scale of pay of rs. 1665-3200 and it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to demand the scale of Rs. 2195-4560 at present. ( 12 ) AS the petitioners were appointed for the post in the pay scale of Rs. 780-1275 there is no illegality in giving corresponding pay scale of Rs. 1425-2675. However, in view of the Governing Council s Resolution refusing the scale of pay to the post in which the petitioners were appointed at Rs. 1665-3200, the petitioners were given the said scale of pay. They cannot further seek another revision. May be for this reason, the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri jagapati made a feeble attempt to request the Court that at least the petitioners be given the corresponding revised scale of pay treating them as appointed only in the scale of pay of Rs. 1010-1800. This cannot be accepted. When the petitioners were appointed admittedly the cadre strength and cadres were not formed and therefore pending decision by the Governing Council they were appointed in the pay of Rs. 780/ -. When the decision was taken they were actually given scale of Rs. 1665-3200 as Grade-II AC Operators. In my considered opinion, action of the respondent is justified, and cannot be termed as illegal. In U. P. STATE CEMENT CORPN. LTD. v. B. K. TIWARI (supra) the respondent applied for the post of Manager (Personnel) Grade E 4. He was, however, offered the post of Deputy Manager on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment which he declined. In the meanwhile, there was revision of pay scales of Officers and staff of the Corporation. Therefore, in reply to the letter of the respondent the appellant addressed letter offering appellant as manager (Pandir) in the scale of pay of Rs. 1500-2000. The respondent accepted the offer and joined the post. Later he represented that he was entitled to be placed in the revised scale of Rs. 1800-2250, in vain. Therefore, in reply to the letter of the respondent the appellant addressed letter offering appellant as manager (Pandir) in the scale of pay of Rs. 1500-2000. The respondent accepted the offer and joined the post. Later he represented that he was entitled to be placed in the revised scale of Rs. 1800-2250, in vain. His writ petition was allowed by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the same holding that: we do not think there is much controversy involved in the present case. The respondent said that at the time when he had applied for the post of Manager (E-4) it was in the pay scale of Rs. 1500-2000/- and what was offered to him was the post of Deputy Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-1800/ -. Thus, according to the respondent, when he was offered the post of Manager, the pay scale had already been revised to Rs. 1800-2250/- to which, he said, he was entitled to. We don t think this contention of the respondent can be accepted. Letter offering him the appointment of Manager is specific. This letter, as noticed above, was written after the revision of pay scales. Not only that, the letter mentioning the designation of the respondent had also, in clear terms, mentioned the pay scale of the Manager which was being offered to him. . . . The letter was accepted by the respondent with the terms and conditions contained therein. The respondent cannot read in the letter more than what it says. Offer of appointment was given to the respondent after revision of the pay scales and the appellant could not possibly had given the old pay scales. We, therefore, do not accept the view taken by the High Court. ( 13 ) AS the petitioners accepted the appointment, whatever be the designation, in the scale of pay of Rs. 780-1275 later refixed as Rs. 1665-3200 they cannot seek any further revision or replacement in another scale of pay as held by the Supreme court in U. P. STATE CEMENT CORPN. LTD. v. B. K. TIWARI (supra ). ( 13 ) AS the petitioners accepted the appointment, whatever be the designation, in the scale of pay of Rs. 780-1275 later refixed as Rs. 1665-3200 they cannot seek any further revision or replacement in another scale of pay as held by the Supreme court in U. P. STATE CEMENT CORPN. LTD. v. B. K. TIWARI (supra ). It is well settled that fixation of pay scales for the employees and placement of employees in a particular scale of pay is within the realm of executive and in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court cannot ordinarily interfere in the matter unless there are allegations of hostile discrimination in fixing the scale of pay. A reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in STATE OF U. P. v. J. P. CHAURASIA and KSHETRIYA kisan GRAMINA BANK v. D. B. SHARMA. In STATE OF U. P. v. J. P. CHAURASIA (supra) it was held: the first question regarding entitlement to the pay-scale admissible to Sections officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalent unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalent unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration. (emphasis supplied) ( 14 ) IN KSHETRIYA KISAN GRAMIN BANK v. D. B. SHARMA (supra) it was held: the next question that arises for consideration is as to what extent the High court would be justified in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 to interfere with the findings of an Expert Body like the Equation committee. In State of U. P. v. J. P. Chaurasia [ (1989) 1 SCC 121 = AIR 1989 SC 19 = 1989 Lab IC 1146) this Court unequivocally held that in the matter of equation of posts or equation of pay, the same should be left to the Executive government, who can get it determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission, and such Expert body would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts and when such determination by a Commission or committee is made, the Court should normally accept it and should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration. (emphasis supplied) ( 15 ) THE submission of the learned counsel based on so called recommendation of the general Manager (Operations) is also devoid of any merit. The respondent issued circular dt. 26. 8. 1998 requesting all the Heads of Departments to represent any injustice/grievance of staff working under them in writing to the Director through proper channel so that they may be placed before the Committee formed by the Executive Board in its seventh meeting. The same was communicated by Heads of departments to all the staff members. The General Manager (Operations) submitted a note on 10. 9. 1998 informing that though the scale of pay of rs. 2195-4560 is attached to the post of AC Operator, the petitioners were given scale of Rs. 1665-3200 and hence scale of pay of Rs. 2195-4560 may be implemented to petitioners. The basis for giving scale of pay attached to the post of AC operator is absent in the note prepared by the General Manager (Operations ). 2195-4560 is attached to the post of AC Operator, the petitioners were given scale of Rs. 1665-3200 and hence scale of pay of Rs. 2195-4560 may be implemented to petitioners. The basis for giving scale of pay attached to the post of AC operator is absent in the note prepared by the General Manager (Operations ). Be that as it may, I fail to understand as to how the internal office note can confer right on the petitioners. It is well settled that internal office notes or internal office memos do not confer any rights on the citizens and cannot be enforced in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In any event, it is only recommendation and even as per the Circular dt. 26. 8. 1998 issued by the director the matter has to be placed before the Executive Board. Sufficient explanation is given in the counter-affidavit that the recommendations could not be placed before the Committee formed by the Executive Board as the SVIMS itself was handed over to TTD. The submission, therefore, does not commend itself to this Court. As noticed above, pursuant to interim orders of this Court, the respondent has issued proceedings on 10. 4. 2001 sanctioning scale of pay of rs. 2195-4560 with effect from 17. 2. 1993. It Is not known whether the arrears of salary were paid to the petitioner in W. P. No. 15849 of 1999. If any arrears of salary were paid for the period from 26. 11. 1994 till 10. 1. 2003 they shall not be recovered from Gopi Kumar. It is, however, open to recover the arrears if already paid for the period from 17. 2. 1993 till 25. 11. 1999. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.