ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…….issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not providing for at least two promotional channels from the post of Physical Directors/Lecturers in Physical Education in Government Degree Colleges by making appropriate provision in the Telangana State Collegiate Education Service, issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 6, Higher Education Department, dt. 06/02/2023 as discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and further direct the Respondents to provide for promotional channels to the post of Principal and other higher posts from the post of Physical Directors/Lecturers in Physical Education in Government Degree Colleges in Telangana State Collegiate Education Service Rules, 2023 and pass….” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Physical Director in Government Junior College at Bellampally on 09.07.1999 and was later promoted to the post of Physical Director in UGC with pay scales in Government Degree College on 20.10.2004. The petitioner herein is fully qualified and eligible to be appointed to the post of Principal. Subsequently, based on the UGC guidelines, G.O.Ms. No. 91 dated 26.03.1997 was issued, wherein it was ordered that Physical Director working in Degree Colleges drawing scales of pay of Rs. 700 – Rs. 1600 and who possess qualifications as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.491 dated 16.11.1994 shall be designated as Lecturers in Physical Education with immediate effect. Accordingly, the petitioner was also considered as Lecturer in Physical Education. However, the rules issued in G.O. Ms. No. 47, dated 14.05.2007 did not provide for the Lecturers in Physical Education to be appointed to the post of Principal. Therefore, proposal was sent in this regard and the government vide memo dated 31.01.2014 had directed the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to examine and submit a detailed report. However, no action has been initiated till date and no further promotional channels has been provided. Further, the government has issued special rules for Telangana State Collegiate Education Service vide G.O. Ms. Therefore, proposal was sent in this regard and the government vide memo dated 31.01.2014 had directed the Commissioner of Collegiate Education to examine and submit a detailed report. However, no action has been initiated till date and no further promotional channels has been provided. Further, the government has issued special rules for Telangana State Collegiate Education Service vide G.O. Ms. No.6 dated 06.02.2023, wherein the post of Physical Director for Government Degree College had been pushed down to Class ‘D’ category- I, where no channels have been provided for promotion. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed. PERUSED THE RECORD:- 4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 and in particular para No.11 is extracted hereunder:- “11. In the instant case, it is submitted that since the matter of re-designation of Physical Director and promotion to the post of Principal requires requisite qualification i.e., must possess a Master’s Degree with a minimum of 55% of marks of equivalent Grade, must posses Ph.D Degree, an experience of 15 years of teaching as Assistant Professor or Associate Professor and Lecturer (existing) in Government Degree College. Other criteria as per UGC Regulations from time to time and it’s all related to academic, the promotion to the Principal cadre needs 15 years of teaching experience. Whereas pursuant to the Union/Association letter has been addressed to the Government in this regard vide letter File No.CCE-SER1/POLY/9/2023-POLY, dated 13.12.2023 for further action and orders are awaited in the matter. 5. It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is presently working as Physical Director in the Government Degree College and had been initially appointed in the year 1999 and since then the petitioner is being continued as a Physical Director without any promotion. 6. It is specific case of the petitioner that Physical Director in University would fit in for the description of teacher and therefore, the petitioner should be treated on par with any other teacher and the petitioner should also have the benefit of promotion and other benefits which eventually followon promotion i.e., pension and other monetary benefits. 7. 6. It is specific case of the petitioner that Physical Director in University would fit in for the description of teacher and therefore, the petitioner should be treated on par with any other teacher and the petitioner should also have the benefit of promotion and other benefits which eventually followon promotion i.e., pension and other monetary benefits. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide detailed representation, dated 04.01.2022 addressed to the respondent No.2 herein requested to resolve the issues pertaining to Physical Directors working in Degree Colleges and in particular referred to creating promotion channel to the qualified Physical Director to the post of Principal in Degree Colleges, duly amending G.O.Ms.No.47 of 2007 which is in force, in addition to other issues pertaining to Physical Directors. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that Telangana Degree Colleges Physical Education Teacher’s Association made its representation, dated 11.09.2023 addressed to the 2 nd respondent herein to consider the request as put- forth by the petitioner in petitioner’s earlier representation, dated 04.01.2022 addressed to the 2 nd respondent and in particular sought for creating promotion channel to the qualified Physical Directors to the post of Principal in Degree Colleges duly amending GO.Ms.No.47 of 2007. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 with a specific plea that no promotional channel can be created since petitioner had not fulfilled the criteria of ‘15’ years of teaching experience. The petitioner has filed reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 and contended that a Sports Officer/ Physical Training Instructor would also fall within definition of teacher. DISCUSSION AND CONLCUSION :- 10. On the point that duties of a PTI / Sports Officer would fall within the definition of a “ teacher” , petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in P.C.Modi Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya and Another, dated 13.12.2023 reported in 2023 Law suit(SC) 1187 and in particular para No.12 and the same is extracted hereunder:- 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is deemed appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14th December, 2009 and restore the judgment dated 26th April, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is deemed appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14th December, 2009 and restore the judgment dated 26th April, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge. It is declared that the appellant, who was discharging the duties of a PTI/Sports Officer, would fall within the definition of a “teacher” and would have been entitled to be continued in service till completion of 62 years of age. As the appellant was prematurely retired by the respondents at the age of 60 years, it is held that he shall be entitled to all consequential and monetary benefits including, arrear of salary, etc., had he continued in service upto to the age of 62 years. The retiral benefits of the appellant shall also be computed on a presumption that his age of retirement was 62 years. The entire amount due and payable to the appellant shall be computed by the respondents and paid over to him along with a copy of the said computation within a period of six weeks from today. 11. The judgment of the Apex Court in P.S.Ramamohana Rao Vs. A.P. Agricultural University and Another reported in (1997) 8 SCC 350 , dated 31.07.1997 and in particular para Nos. 19 and 20 are extracted hereunder:- 19. We are unable to agree. It may be that the Physical Director gives his guidance or teaching to the students only in the evenings after the regular classes are over. It may also be that the University has not prescribed in writing any theoretical and practical classes for the students so far as physical education is concerned. But as pointed by us earlier, among various duties of the Physical Director, expressly or otherw ise, are included the duty to teach the skills of various games as well as their rules and practices. The said duties bring him clearly within the main part of the definition as a ` teacher'. We therefore, do not accept the contention raised in the additional counter affidavit of the University. 20. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and judgment of High Court is set aside and it is declared that appellant was entitled to continue in service till he completed 60 years of age. We therefore, do not accept the contention raised in the additional counter affidavit of the University. 20. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed and judgment of High Court is set aside and it is declared that appellant was entitled to continue in service till he completed 60 years of age. Now that he has retired he is entitled to the emoluments payable to him for the remaining period of the service upto the completion of 60 years deducting the period for which he worked as Physical Director beyond 58 years pursuant to stay orders granted by the High Court. His retiral benefits shall also be computed on the basis that his age of retirement was 60 years. The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. 12. In support of the contention that the promotion is a normal incidence of service and there is no justification in denying the promotion for similarly placed employees, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain Vs. Union of India reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 688 and in particular para Nos. 7 &8 are extracted hereunder;- 7. This Court, has on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other Ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical 'A' Group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public serv- ice and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenue for this category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary, appropriate rules should be framed within four months from now providing promotional avenue for the 'A' category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directorate. 8. This Writ Petition is allowed and the following directions are issued: 1. 8. This Writ Petition is allowed and the following directions are issued: 1. Within four months from today, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Union of India shall frame a set of appropriate rules, inter alia, providing suitable promotional avenue for the 'A' Group scientists in the non-medical wing of the establishment of Director General of Health Services; 2. These 'A' Group scientists shall be entitled to book allowance, higher degree allowance, risk allowance and conveyance allowance at the same rate as is admissible to doctors in the medical wing in the Directorate w.e.f. 1.4.1989; 3. Government shall examine the tenability of the claim of equal pay scales for this category of officers within four months from today. 13. The judgment of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal and Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 100 , dated 05.02.2008 and in particular para Nos. 12, 13 and 14 are extracted hereunder:- 12. When employees are denied an opportunity of promotion for long years (in this case 30 years) on the ground that he fell within a category of employees excluded from promotional prospect, the Superior Court will have the jurisdiction to issue necessary direction. 13. If there is no channel of promotion in respect of a particular group of officers resulting in stagnation over the years, the Court although may not issue any direction as to in which manner a scheme should be formulated or by reason thereof interfere with the operation of existing channel of promotion to the officers working in different departments and officers of the Government but the jurisdiction to issue direction to make a scheme cannot be denied to a Superior Court of the country. 14. This Court in State of Tripua & Ors. v. K.K. Roy [ (2004) 9 SCC 65 ], upon taking into consideration some of the earlier decisions of this Court, held : "6. It is not a case where there existed an avenue for promotion. It is also not a case where the State intended to make amendments in the promotional policy. The appellant being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution should have created promotional avenues for the respondent having regard to its constitutional obligations adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also not a case where the State intended to make amendments in the promotional policy. The appellant being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution should have created promotional avenues for the respondent having regard to its constitutional obligations adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Despite its constitutional obligations, the State cannot take a stand that as the respondent herein accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment knowing fully well that there was no avenue for promotion, he cannot resile there from. It is not a case where the principles of estoppel or waiver should be applied having regard to the constitutional functions of the State. It is not disputed that the other States in India/ Union of India having regard to the recommendations made in this behalf by the Pay Commission introduced the Scheme of Assured Career Promotion in terms whereof the incumbent of a post if not promoted within a period of 12 years is granted one higher scale of pay and another upon completion of 24 years if in the meanwhile he had not been promoted despite existence of promotional avenues. When questioned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, even could not point out that the State of Tripura has introduced such a scheme. We wonder as to why such a scheme was not introduced by the appellant like the other States in India, and what impeded it from doing so. Promotion being a condition of service and having regard to the requirements thereof as has been pointed out by this Court in the decisions referred to hereinbefore, it was expected that the appellant should have followed the said principle." 14. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that grievance of the petitioner as put-forth in the representations dated 04.01.2022 & 11.09.2023 had already been communicated vide letter File No.CCE- SER1/ POLY/ 9/ 2023-POLY, dated 13.12.2023 to the Government and therefore, the Government may be directed to take decision in the matter in accordance to law within a reasonable period. 15. 15. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents further submits that the Writ Petition could be disposed of as per the averments made at para No.11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, directing the respondent No.1 to take appropriate action as per the letter vide File No.CCE-SER1/ POLY/ 9/ 2023-POLY, dated 13.12.2023 in accordance to law within a reasonable period. 16. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents 17. This Court opines that the 1 st respondent is bound to take action upon letter File No.CCE- SER1/ POLY/ 9/ 2023-POLY, dated 13.12.2023, and forthw ith consider the request of the petitioner to formulate a scheme, creating promotion channel to a qualified Physical Director to the post of Principal in Degree College, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above). 18. Taking into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2(referred to and extracted above) d) The view of the Apex Court in the judgments enlisted below (referred to and extracted above) i) P.C.Modi Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Vishwa Vidyalaya and Another, dated 13.12.2023 reported in 2023 Law suit(SC) 1187 ii) P.S.Ramamohana Rao Vs. A.P.Agricultural University and Another reported in (1997) 8 SCC 350, dated 31.07.1997. iii) Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain Vs. Union of India reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 688 . iv) Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal and Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 100 , dated 05.02.2008. A.P.Agricultural University and Another reported in (1997) 8 SCC 350, dated 31.07.1997. iii) Dr.Ms.O.Z.Hussain Vs. Union of India reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 688 . iv) Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Parashotam Das Bansal and Others reported in (2008) 5 SCC 100 , dated 05.02.2008. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to consider the specific request of the petitioner for formulating a scheme for providing at least two (02) promotional channels in the post of Physical Directors/ Physical Education Teachers in Government Degree Colleges by making appropriate provision in the Telangana State Education Services, G.O.Ms.No. 06, Higher Education (CE-I ) Dept, dated 06.02.2023 within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, duly taking into consideration the letter File No.CCE- SER1/ POLY/ 9/ 2023-POLY, dated 13.12.2023 which has already been forwarded pertaining to the subject issue, for initiating further necessary action and for passing of appropriate orders by the 1 st respondent herein, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court and the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders on the representations of the petitioner, dated 04.01.2022, 11,09,2023 addressed to the 2 nd respondent and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner on the said subject issue. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.