Judgment :- 1. The petitioner after joining as Lecturer in Department of Architecture and Sculpture in Tamil University, Thanjavur in the year 1985, was recruited and appointed as Principal in the Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mamallapuram by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.50, Tamil Development Culture Department, dated 08.02.1996. Based on the said Government order, he joined duty on 01.03.96 in the Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mamallapuram. Prior to 31.07.73, the said college was under the control of Industries and Commerce Department, but after 01.08.73, the said college was brought under the control of Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai (Education Department).In the year 1991, based on the recommendation of the All India Council for Technical Education Committee, the scale of pay for the teaching staff and principal was revised on par with polytechnics and special institution staff. Accordingly, the pay of the teachers working in Mamallapuram college was also fixed by the competent authority with effect from 01.01.86 with monetary benefit from 01.06.88 in G.O.Ms.No.430, dated 11.04.1991. Thereafter, the pay scale approved by the All India Council for Technical Education was followed. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 08.02.96 mentioning the principal scale of pay Rs.4200-125-4950-150-5700 for Principal was issued. Subsequently, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.26, dated 11.01.94, merged the pay of the Principal of central polytechnic and other polytechnic in the same scale of pay of Rs.4500-5700 instead of Rs.4200-5700. The pay of Principal of Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mamallapuram has to be fixed by the respondents, but the same was not done by the respondents. Since the pay anamoly of the petitioner was not settled, the petitioner made representation to the 1st respondent on 30.05.2003 requesting to fix the pay of the Principal of the Mamallapuram College of Architecture and Sculpture in the scale of pay Rs.16400-450-20900-500-22400 based on the recommendation of the AICTE as given to the Principal of other polytechnics on the ground that the Mamallapuram College Teachers and Principal were taking class to Degree students. Though the representation of the petitioner was forwarded by the Commissioner of Art and Culpture, Chennai, to the Government on 07.09.2000, the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner in Lr.No.12250/Culture-1/2000-3 dated 23.11.2001 on the ground that the petitioner is having lesser qualification, and, therefore, lesser pay will be paid. Though the representation of the petitioner was forwarded by the Commissioner of Art and Culpture, Chennai, to the Government on 07.09.2000, the 1st respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner in Lr.No.12250/Culture-1/2000-3 dated 23.11.2001 on the ground that the petitioner is having lesser qualification, and, therefore, lesser pay will be paid. After the rejection order, the petitioner made review application to the Government through the 2nd respondent with a request to reconsider the earlier request for pay fixation in the post of Principal on par with the scale of pay of Rs.16400-22400 given to the Principal of other polytechnics on the ground that the question of lesser pay for lesser qualification does not arise after the year 1994, since the Principal with lesser qualification, will have the same scale of pay on par with the Principal having higher qualification. Again, the prayer of the petitioner was not answered favourably. Therefore, once again the petitioner made a representation on 24.01.2002 through the 2nd respondent. The said representation was forwarded to the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent. Again, there was no response from the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the qualification for polytechnic and other special institution was subsequently changed as M.E. against B.E. But, in the Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, the qualification for the Principal post was not changed as M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. against B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. in the said adhoc rule in G.O.Ms.No.422 dated 31.03.86. Therefore, the respondent cannot say lesser pay for lesser qualification. Further, it was contended that maximum qualification now available in the field of Temple Architecture and Sculpture is 5 year Diploma and three years Bachelor Degree and there is no Masters degree available anywhere in India. On that basis, the Bachelors Degree in this field cannot be said as lesser qualification and on that basis it was contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. On that basis, the Bachelors Degree in this field cannot be said as lesser qualification and on that basis it was contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Opposing the claim of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner did not possess 5 years of experience as Head of Department as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.430, dated 11.04.1991 and also the petitioner does not have even practical experience as temple builder (Sthapathy) for a period of ten years as per adhoc rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.422, Education Department, dated 31.03.1986, since he has joined the post of Principal only on 01.03.1996, and, therefore, he is not entitled for fixation of pay at Rs.17,300/-as per the clarification issued by the Government vide Lr.No.10995/C2/2000-8, Higher Education Department, dated 16.03.2006. Therefore, the impugned order passed rejecting his unreasonable prayer based on lesser qualification, it is submitted, is not in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On that basis, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. Prima facie it is clear that the All India Council for Technical Educations scale of pay, has been extended to the teaching staff of the Colleges of Fine Arts, Chennai and Kumbakonam and Government College of Architecture and Sculpture, Mamallapuram vide G.O.Ms.No.430, dated 11.04.91, by specifically mentioning that the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Associate Lecturer was Bachelors Degree. For promotion as Lecturer, a person should possess a Bachelors Degree in Temple Architecture/Sculpture with 10 years of experience either practical or teaching; for appointment to the post of Head of the Department, a person should possess a Bachelors Degree in Temple Architecture/Sculpture and must have completed 15 years of experience either practical or teaching; for the post of Principal, a person should possess a Bachelors degree in Temple Architecture/Sculpture and must have 5 years experience as Head of Department. This indicates that the petitioner does not fulfill the qualification prescribed for AICTE scale of pay. The petitioner not only failed to possess 5 years of experience as Head of Department as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.430, dated 11.04.1991, he does not have even practical experience for the period of 10 years as per adhoc rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.422, dated 31.03.1986. This indicates that the petitioner does not fulfill the qualification prescribed for AICTE scale of pay. The petitioner not only failed to possess 5 years of experience as Head of Department as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.430, dated 11.04.1991, he does not have even practical experience for the period of 10 years as per adhoc rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.422, dated 31.03.1986. Even in G.O.Ms.No.126, Higher Education Department, dated 28.03.1999, orders were issued for the implementation of the recommendation of the All India Council for Technical Education, revising the scale of pay of the teaching staff of the Government and Government aided Polytechnic Colleges and Special Diploma Institutions with effect from 01.01.1996 and the same was further clarified by Government Lr.No.10995/C2/2000-8, dated 16.03.2006 clarifying that the minimum start scale of Rs.17,300/-was allowed only to those working as on 01.01.1996 in the revised scale of pay of Rs.16400-450-20900-500-22400. But, admittedly, the petitioners revised the scale of pay is only Rs.14000-420-18620. Therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to have the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.126, dated 28.03.1999. Accordingly, the question of allowing higher scale of pay of Rs.17,300/- to the Principals of other Polytechnic Colleges, who were promoted after 01.01.1996, does not arise. When the petitioner does not possess the qualification mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No.422, dated 31.03..1986 as well as G.O.MS.No.430, dated 11.04.1991, he is not entitled to have benefit of G.O.Ms.No.126, dated 28.03.1999, as it has been clarified that the minimum start of Rs.17,300/-was allowed to those working as on 01.01.1996. Therefore, the reasons mentioned in the impugned order that the person having lesser qualification will have lesser pay, will not amount to violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petitions is liable to dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.