ORDER : The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus by setting aside the impugned Memo No.42351/IE-II(1)/2004 Higher Education Department dated 02.01.2010 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 12.1.2010 which was served on 1.2.2010 to the petitioners. 2. The petitioner claims that the 1st, 3rd and 4th petitioners are appointed as Physical Directors in different Aided Colleges on 16.7.2002, 24.9.2003 and 28.5.2003 respectively pursuant to the Advertisement issued on 9.5.2002, 10.7.2003 and 29.5.2002 calling for applications to fill up the post of Physical Director (Aided post) duly prescribing qualifications, by the duly constituted selection committee as per the procedure. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Librarian on 9.6.2003 pursuant to the Advertisement issued on 14.4.2003 calling for applications to fill up the post of Librarian (Aided post) duly prescribing qualifications by the duly constituted selection committee as per the procedure. The appointment of the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 as Physical Directors and petitioner No.2 as Librarian was approved by the Board of Intermediate Education on 05.06.2003 and 06.10.2003 in respect of Petitioners 1 and 2 only. Despite the petitioner’s appointment was approved by the Board, they were not being paid salary. Several other Physical Directors and Librarians who are similarly situated to that of the petitioners were appointed by the different private aided colleges across the State even after appointment of the petitioners and all of them are getting salaries, whereas the petitioners are being denied payment of salaries, which is illegal and arbitrary. 3. This Court, on 09.02.2010 granted an interim order in WPMP.No.3657 of 2010 directing the respondents to retain and continue the petitioners as Physical Directors/Librarians by staying all further proceedings in pursuance of the Memo No.42351/IE=II(1)/2004 Higher Education Department dated 02.01.2010 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 12.1.2010. 4. The 2nd respondent filed counter along with Vacate Petition stating that Act 2 of 1994 has been enacted to regulate the appointments and prohibit irregular appointments in offices and establishments under the control of State Government, Local Authorities, Corporations and bodies established under law made by the State Legislature. Further, orders have been issued in G.O.Ms.No.275 Finance & Planning (FW:SMPC) Department dated 14.12.1995 stipulating no post can be filled in the departments and offices in the State Government whether full time or part-time, contingent or any other category without getting clearance from the Government in Finance Department. Further, orders have been issued in G.O.Ms.No.275 Finance & Planning (FW:SMPC) Department dated 14.12.1995 stipulating no post can be filled in the departments and offices in the State Government whether full time or part-time, contingent or any other category without getting clearance from the Government in Finance Department. 63 posts of Physical Directors/Librarians in Private Aided Junior Colleges in the State were filled up during the ban period from 1996-2003 in violation of provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 without getting prior approval from the Government and requested the Government to cancel all the irregular appointments made during the ban period i.e., 19962003 and directed to treat the said appointments as contract appointments as they were made in contravention of the orders issued by the Government. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to all the 63 Physical Directors and Librarians who were appointed irregularly, including the petitioners through proceedings dated 12.01.2010. Aggrieved by the show cause notice, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The High Court in its order in WPMP.No.3657 of 2010 suspended the show cause notice and the petitioners are continuing in service. The 3rd respondent has not approved the appointment of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 05.02.1987. Prior permission has to be obtained from the Government for filling up vacant posts in aided Junior Colleges as per G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 and in this case, no permission has been obtained from the Government and the appointments made during the ban period 19962003 are prima facie irregular. 5. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.35 Higher Education (CE-II-1) Department dated 27.3.2006 imposing a general ban on filling up vacant aided posts in Private Aided Junior/Degree Colleges and Polytechnics, through direct recruitment except in respect of SC/ST backlog vacancies. It has also been decided by the Government to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned Commissioner/Director/officials who were responsible for these irregular appointments under Rule 24 (1) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were selected by the Committee and appointed by the Colleges and nearly 63 other Physical Directors/Librarians who have been similarly approved were selected for appointment in various colleges in the State. When the appointments of the 63 Physical Directors/Librarians in the Private Aided Colleges sought to be cancelled, they approached the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh. When the appointments of the 63 Physical Directors/Librarians in the Private Aided Colleges sought to be cancelled, they approached the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh. By virtue of the interim order, they were continued and paid salaries. Finally, the batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.2543 of 2010 and batch were allowed by High Court for the State of Telangana, by order dated 11.09.2019. The operative portion reads thus: “Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the impugned show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners based on G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995, whereas the 2nd respondent has given permission to fill up the vacancies much prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 i.e., 20.3.1995. Entire regular selection process was over before issuance of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995. The contention of the respondents that the appointment of the petitioners is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 has no application to the cases on hand. Admittedly, G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case as the said G.O was issued after lapse of nine months from the date of giving permission by the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent to fill up the said vacancies. It is also noticed that the impugned show cause notices were issued to the petitioners without taking into account G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 23.09.2002, wherein it was categorically held by the State Government that G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995has no application when it comes to appointment made in aided private educational institutions. Hence, all the writ petitions are liable to be allowed. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned Memos dated 02.01.2010 and the impugned show cause notices dated 12.01.2010 are set aside. No costs.” The orders of the High Court were implemented after filing Contempt Case, by issuing proceedings Rc.No.Admn.I/1055/2020 dated 08.02.2021 by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad and they were being continued and paid salaries by admitting them into grant-in-aid posts. This Court also following the said judgment allowed the several writ petitions. One such writ petition is W.P.No.2485 of 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners are also similarly placed. 7. This Court also following the said judgment allowed the several writ petitions. One such writ petition is W.P.No.2485 of 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners are also similarly placed. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education vehemently contended that the petitioners’ case is not similar and identical to that of the case of 63 persons who were appointed as Physical Directors and Librarians in the Private Aided Junior Colleges during the ban period 1996-2003 in violation of the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 without getting prior approval from the Government and subsequently their appointments are sought to be cancelled by issuing show cause notices. This Court interfered and granted interim direction and by virtue of the interim order therein, they were continued and now in pursuance of the interim order granted in batch of writ petitions, they were continued and admitted into grant-in-aid. The marked difference in this case is that the appointment of the petitioners was made after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 as such, the orders granted in other writ petitions are not applicable to the petitioners as they were appointed on 16.7.2002, 09.06.2003, 24.9.2003 and 28.5.2003 respectively, subsequent to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 and ban imposed. Further, provisions of G.O.Ms.No.75 are not applicable to the appointments made in the Private Aided Junior Colleges and Degree Colleges and it is applicable only to the appointments made in schools and his appointment is also not a special drive recruitment to the backlog vacancies for SCs and STs as exempted from G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 27.3.2006 and the exemption is only prospective and the petitioners cannot compare themselves with that of the other persons and writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. The point that would arise for consideration is whether the selection and appointment of the petitioners as Physical Director and Librarian is legal and valid? 10. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances, submission of the counsel and perused the record, this Court found that various Colleges issued Advertisement dated 9.5.2002, 14.4.2003, 10.7.2003 and 29.5.2002 with prior permission of the 2nd respondent to fill up the post of Physical Director and Librarian in the colleges. 10. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances, submission of the counsel and perused the record, this Court found that various Colleges issued Advertisement dated 9.5.2002, 14.4.2003, 10.7.2003 and 29.5.2002 with prior permission of the 2nd respondent to fill up the post of Physical Director and Librarian in the colleges. But a perusal of one of the Advertisement filed at Page No.16 of the writ affidavit reads that “applications are invited from the eligible candidates for the following for the post of Physical Director (Aided Post). The minimum qualification for this post is M.P.Ed., with 50% of aggregate marks. Applications should reach the Correspondent on or before 25.5.2002.” A reading of the advertisements clearly shows that the post of Physical Director or Librarian are not earmarked for any reserved candidates like SC, ST and BC and is not a special drive to fill up the post of backlog vacancies. The advertisements were issued after coming into force of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995. The exemption granted in G.O.Ms.No.35 dated 27.3.2006 cannot be made applicable retrospectively and it operates only prospectively. In G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 23.9.2002 it was made clear that G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 has no application when it comes to appointments made in aided private educational institutions. But the appointment of the petitioners is prior to the said clarification. The said GO is only applicable to the School Education Department as contended by the learned Government Pleader but not to the Junior Colleges. After the judgment dated 11.9.2019 passed in W.P.No.2543 of 2010 by the High Court for the State of Telangana, following the same, this Court also disposed of W.P.No.2485 of 2010 on 18.11.2019. The operative portion of the order reads thus: “Having regard to the reasons assigned in the said order, this Court does not propose to take a different view from the High Court for the State of Telangana in the above said order. In view of the above order, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present writ petition also following the said order. In view of the above order, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present writ petition also following the said order. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned memo, dated 02.01.2010 and consequently show causes, dated 12.01.2010 are hereby set aside.” In the said judgment, it is specifically held that appointment and recruitment and permission and approval by the Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education was given much prior to G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995 and that is the specific stand of the petitioners therein and by approving the same, the writ petitions were allowed and implemented. The facts and circumstances in the present case are totally on a different footing. In the present case, the petitioners were appointed on 16.7.2002, 09.06.2003, 24.9.2003 and 28.5.2003. Even though the procedure is followed as enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.12 for their selection and appointment, but the 2nd respondent, while permitting the Colleges to appoint the petitioners as Physical Directors and Librarian, he has not obtained prior approval of the 1st respondent Government as per G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995. The petitioners’ further contention that similarly situated persons to that of the petitioners were admitted into grant-in-aid and the case of the petitioners is denied. However, it is well settled law that Article 14 of the Constitution of India enshrines only positive equality. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners holds no water. 11. In view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is found to be devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.