ORDER : The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus: (a) to direct the 3rd respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner; (b) to direct the 2nd respondent to admit the petitioner grant-in-aid; (c) to direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders in ratifying the proposal sent by the 2nd respondent in the matter of appointment of the petitioner as Physical Director; (d) to direct the respondents to pay the salary for the period functioned till such decision is taken by holding the action of the 1st respondent in not taking any steps or decision in the matter; and (e) the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not paying the salary though similarly placed persons are being paid as bad, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to BC Community. He passed Masters Degree in Physical Education in the year 1994. The 4th respondent college issued Advertisement dated 04.4.2003 calling for applications to fill up the single and solitary post of Physical Director (Aided post) duly prescribing qualifications. The petitioner submitted his application in response to the advertisement as he is fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as Physical Director in the 4th respondent College. He was selected by the duly constituted selection committee as per the procedure and the 4th respondent college has given appointment order dated 28.5.2003 and he joined duty on 02.6.2003. The 4th respondent addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent for approval of the post of Physical Director. While so, one Sri P. Raja Kumar Babu who was working in VJ High School, which school is attached to the 4th respondent college and run by the same society filed W.P.No.8414 of 2002 claiming promotion to the post of Physical Director to which the petitioner was appointed. Thereafter, communication went on between the Board and the College but no final orders of approval was granted by the Board due to pendency of the above writ petition and consequently, he was not placed in grant-in-aid post by the 2nd respondent and was not paid salary since his appointment. Subsequently, the said Sri P. Raja Kumar Babu had withdrawn W.P.No.8414 of 2002 on 09.03.2006. Subsequently, the said Sri P. Raja Kumar Babu had withdrawn W.P.No.8414 of 2002 on 09.03.2006. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent directed the Regional Joint Director to furnish remarks in the matter vide proceedings dated 24.2.2007 who in turn vide proceedings dated 07.05.2007 sought for favourable orders in favour of the petitioner but no action has been taken. Despite the petitioner’s appointment by the Board, he was not being paid salary. Several other Physical Directors and Librarians who are similarly situated to that of the petitioner were appointed by the different private aided colleges across the State even after appointment of the petitioner and all of them are getting salaries, whereas the petitioner is being denied payment of salaries, which is illegal and arbitrary. 3. This Court, on 28.04.2008 while ordering rule nisi granted the following interim order in WPMP.No.12346 of 2008: “Pending further orders, it is directed that, in case, the petitioner is functioning as Physical Director in the 4th respondent – institution, they shall pay the salary to him from month to month. 4. The petitioner filed WPMP.No.20866 of 2011 seeking a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner into grant-in-aid and pay salary on par with Sri P. Venugopal Reddy who is similarly placed like the petitioner herein. This Court, by order dated 17.9.2012 following the order passed in WP.No.3847 of 2008 dated 03.09.2012 directed the pay the respondents 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner to grant-in-aid and pay her at the minimum of the pay with effect from 01.10.2012, subject to the result of the writ petition. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner was appointed through selection committee held on 27.5.2003 during the ban period. The Government has enacted Act 2 of 1994 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 that all departments and offices in the State Government should necessarily send requisitions to the Government in the Finance and Planning Department to fill every kind of post whether full time or part-time, contingent or any other category and after getting clearance from the government in Finance Department such post can be filled. That being the rule position, 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., 1996-2003 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 petitioner through proceedings dated 12.01.2010. Aggrieved by the show cause notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.2771 of 2010 before the High Court. The High Court in its order in WPMP.No.3657 of 2010 suspended the show cause notice and the petitioner is continuing in service. The 3rd respondent has not approved the appointment of the petitioner 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. 6. 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. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was selected by the Committee and appointed by the 4th respondent College and nearly 63 other Physical Directors/Librarians who have been similarly approved were selected for appointment in various colleges in the State. However, in pursuance of the interim order, the petitioner is being paid minimum salaries from 01.10.2012 onwards. 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. However, in pursuance of the interim order, the petitioner is being paid minimum salaries from 01.10.2012 onwards. 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. 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 petitioner is also similarly placed. 8. 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 petitioner is also similarly placed. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education vehemently contended that the petitioner’s 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 appointment is 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 petitioner 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 petitioner as he was appointed on 27.5.2003, 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 this 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 petitioner cannot compare himself 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 petitioner as Physical Director is legal and valid? 10. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances, submission of the counsel and perused the record, this Court found that the 4th respondent College issued Advertisement dated 28.05.2002 with prior permission of the 2nd respondent to fill up the post of Physical Director in the 4th respondent college. 10. Having carefully considered the facts and circumstances, submission of the counsel and perused the record, this Court found that the 4th respondent College issued Advertisement dated 28.05.2002 with prior permission of the 2nd respondent to fill up the post of Physical Director in the 4th respondent college. But a perusal of the advertisement filed along with the annexure – VI at Page No.29 of the writ affidavit reads that “Physical Director Post: Open Competition, Required Qualifications: Degree in any faculty plus M.P.Ed., 1st or 2nd class with minimum of 50% of marks. Applications are invited from the qualified candidates with full bio-data enclosing copies of educational qualifications and marks certificates age etc., within 15 days from the date of notification extending the copies to the District Vocational Officer, Rajahmundry and Regional Inspection Officer, Board of Intermediate Education, Rajahmundry.” A reading of the advertisement clearly shows that the post of Physical Director is 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 said advertisement was 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 petitioner 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 petitioner was appointed on 27.5.2003. Even though the procedure is followed as enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.12 for her selection and appointment, but the 2nd respondent, while permitting the 4th respondent to appoint the petitioner as Physical Director, he has not obtained prior approval of the 1st respondent Government as per G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14.12.1995. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in similar circumstances, the Government has extended the benefit of admitting grant-in-aid to Sri P. Venugopal Reddy, Physical Director, Sri Venugopal Swamy Junior College, Nellore through G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 12.3.2012 and the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. However, it is for the appropriate Government to extend the benefit of admitting grant-in-aid in the case of the petitioner. Hence, the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 12.3.2012 could not be extended to the petitioner and the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable. The petitioner’s further contention that similarly situated persons to that of the petitioner were admitted into grant-in-aid and the case of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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.