ORDER : VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J. 1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief: "To issue writ of mandamus declaring the clarification issued by the Government in Letter No.1833995/UE/A2/2022-23 dated 30.10.2022 denying the benefits under CAS on the past services granting 7000, 8000, 9000 as on 7/2007 and 10000 AGP inspite of the orders issued by the Government earlier based on the proposal submitted by the State Council of Higher Education inspite of the orders implementing the said orders by the University is without having any power and authority and contrary to Regulation 10.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010 and contrary to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8031/2022 dated 10.11.2022 and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for 7000, 8000, 9000 as on 7/2007 and 10000 AGPs w.e.f 23.7.2012 and also declare that the earlier orders issued fixing 7000, 8000, 9000 are legal and valid with all consequential attendant benefits." 2. The petitioner worked as Lecturer in Chemistry in KSRM College of Engineering, Kadapa from 26.09.1994 to 12.12.2000. Thereafter, she was recruited by the Commissioner of College Education and posted as Lecturer in Chemistry at Layola College, Pulivendula, Kadapa from 13.12.2000 to 31.12.2002. Further, as Lecturer in Chemistry at B.T. College, Madanapalle from 01.01.2003 to 03.07.2007. A request was made by the petitioner to consider her past services from 13.12.2000 to 03.07.2007, wherein the same was considered by the University and necessary approval was accorded by the Government on according permission for her pay protection as per the LPC issued by her previous employer. The said permission was issued by the Government with the concurrence of Finance Department. Accordingly, pay fixation proceedings were issued by the University on 25.08.2011. On 02.09.2010 the Executive Council passed resolution awarding AGP 8000 w.e.f 13.12.2009 and after completion of 3 years in AGP 8000, the Vice Chancellor issued proceedings of AGP 9000 w.e.f 13.12.2012. On 18.04.2013, the Government declared that the petitioner is entitled for counting her past services rendered from 26.09.1994 to 12.12.2000 for the purpose of CAS as per orders in G.O.Ms.No.14 Higher Education Department dated 20.02.2010 and as per UGC Regulations. Then, proceedings were issued by the authorities counting 6 years 2 months 17 days of past services rendered by the petitioner in degree colleges i.e. total 12 years, 9 months, for the purpose of CAS. Then, proceedings were issued by the authorities counting 6 years 2 months 17 days of past services rendered by the petitioner in degree colleges i.e. total 12 years, 9 months, for the purpose of CAS. However, the respondents are denying the benefits to the petitioners under CAS on the past services granting 7000, 8000, 9000 as on 7/2007 and 10000 AGP. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is instituted. 3. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed separate counter affidavits stating that, the Government has considered the past service to that of her services at Loyola Degree College, Pulivendula for implementation of CAS, whereas the petitioner has put in 6 years 2 months 17 days service in KSR Engineering College. The letter dated 18.04.2013 addressed by the A.P. State Council for Higher Education clearly mentioned that to count the entire past service for award of senior scale only under CAS, but not to give relaxation of CAS to count 6 years 2 months 17 days to effect all promotions at a stretch. The Government issued letter dated 25.01.2014 which is misinterpreted by the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court in order to obtain interim orders. 4. It is stated in the counter affidavit that, if the total service of 6 years 2 months 17 days is to be taken at a stretch for promotion of the petitioner under CAS as contended by the petitioner, the petitioner is not on rolls of the University service during the period of consideration of CAS as Assistant Professor at Senior Scale. The petitioner must be on rolls and in active service during the period of eligibility and on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee. Further, the petitioner shall complete required service at each level of promotion and also fulfill academic pre-requisites for consideration of promotion under CAS. If the petitioner claims of consideration of total 6 years 2 months 17 days of service at a stretch, the petitioner will not be on the rolls and in active service in the University and also will not complete the required service and does not fulfill the pre-requisites and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. The petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavits filed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, reiterating the contentions urged in the writ affidavit, while refuting the contentions of the respondents at their respective counter. 6. 5. The petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavits filed by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, reiterating the contentions urged in the writ affidavit, while refuting the contentions of the respondents at their respective counter. 6. During the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of ?Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)? with Academic Grade Pay (AGP) 10,000 from the year 2012, in accordance with Regulation 10.0 of the UGC Regulations, 2010. Based on this, the Executive Council of the University passed a resolution on 20.03.2013 approving the grant of CAS. As the said resolution attained finality, the petitioner’s prior service rendered in aided institutions from 26.09.1994 to 03.07.2007 was duly considered, especially since the petitioner, along with others, was covered under the Old Pension Scheme. Accordingly, the University rightly granted the benefit to the petitioner with effect from 30.12.2022. He further submitted that the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act has clearly and categorically adopted the UGC Regulations, 2010 for implementation of CAS within the State's jurisdiction. Therefore, Regulation 10.0 of the said Regulations remains in force, entitling the petitioner to have her previous service in non-University colleges should be counted for the purpose of conferring benefits under the CAS scheme. 7. He further submits that, contrary to the settled proposition of law, the respondent University passed an Executive Council Resolution on 30.03.2021 and addressed letters to the Government on 20.01.2021 and 20.09.2022, requesting implementation of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) in accordance with the UGC Regulations. In response to these requests, the Government issued the impugned proceedings dated 30.10.2022, which, however, is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8031 of 2022, dated 10.11.2022. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is a settled proposition of law that the Executive Council (EC) of the University, after considering the UGC Regulations, 2010 and the Rules framed under the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act, passed a resolution conferring certain benefits upon its employees. Such a resolution, once passed, cannot be modified or revoked by the Executive Council on the basis of subsequent instructions issued by the first respondent University. Furthermore, a later Executive Council cannot pass a resolution that either nullifies or takes away the effect of an earlier resolution. Such a resolution, once passed, cannot be modified or revoked by the Executive Council on the basis of subsequent instructions issued by the first respondent University. Furthermore, a later Executive Council cannot pass a resolution that either nullifies or takes away the effect of an earlier resolution. He further clarified that the first respondent issued a circular dated 30.08.2024, extending the benefit of Academic Grade Pay (AGP) of Rs.10,000 to similarly situated individuals at the University. Learned counsel placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Mahatma Gandhi Univeristy vs. Rincymol Mathew, Civil Appeal No.8031 of 2022 dated 10.11.2022 and would contend that the petitioner is entitled to reckon her past services for the purpose of CAS envisaged under the UGC Regulations. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 – University, reiterated the contentions urged in their respective counter affidavits. Further, learned Government Pleader submits that, the period of service should be counted for awarding and considering CAS to the extent of service rendered as lecturer/professor at the university or at university college only. In the present case on hand, the petitioner rendered her services at University from 2007 onwards and she was granted CAS computing her services at University from 2007 onwards only. Learned counsel also submits that, on perusal of Clause 6.3.9 of UGC Regulations, the petitioner is not entitled to grant CAS by including her past services rendered other than the university/college of the University. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner rendered her services from 1994 to 2000 at Pulivendula, 2002 to 2007 at B.T. College, Madanapalle, both colleges are neither University nor classified as University colleges, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for clubbing her past services for granting CAS since 1994. In support of the contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Karnataka University vs. Dr. Prabhugouda , [ (2021) 15 SCC 706 ] . On the strength of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment, learned counsel would contend that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition i.e. CAS/AGP 10,000 by counting her past services she rendered at other than the university, as such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. 11. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 – University adopted the arguments advanced by learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 University and perused the material available on record. 13. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant CAS/AGP or not? 2. Whether the past services rendered by the petitioner from 1994 to 2007 at other colleges be included for granting CAS scheme or not? 3. Whether the Executive Council of the University can revise or modify its own resolution passed by the earlier Executive Council? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition? 14. Pending writ petition, this Hon’ble Court granted an interim order dated 10.02.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.3159 of 2023 and the order is as follows: "For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit and considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels, there shall be an interim suspension of operation of the clarification issued by the Government in Letter No.1833995/UE/A2/2022-23 dated 30.10.2022, pending further orders" POINT Nos.1 & 2: 15. It is a fact that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer and continued thereafter, she had been continuously worked right from 03.10,1998 till she continued to work as Professor. At this stage, Regulation 10.1 of Regulation 10.0 of UGC Regulations, 2010, with respect to grant of CAS is required to be considered, which reads as under: "10.0 COUNTING OF PAST SERVICES FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT AND PROMOTION UNDER CAS 10.1. Previous regular service, whether national or international, as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent in a University, College, National Laboratories or other scientific/professional Organizations such as the CSIR, ICAR, DRDO, UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, ICMR, DBT, etc., should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor or any other nomenclature these posts are described as per Appendix III – Table No. II provided that: (a) The essential qualifications of the post held were not lower than the qualifications prescribed by the UGC for Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor as the case may be. (b) The post is/was in an equivalent grade or of the pre-revised scale of pay as the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) Associate Professor (Reader) and Professor. (c) The candidate for direct recruitment has applied through proper channel only. (d) The concerned Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor should possess the same minimum qualifications as prescribed by the UGC for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor, as the case may be. (e) The post was filled in accordance with the prescribed selection procedure as laid down in the Regulations of University/State Government/Central Government/ Concerned Institutions, for such appointments. (f) The previous appointment was not as guest lecturer for any duration, or an ad hoc or in a leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted provided that: (i) the period of service was of more than one year duration; (ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and (iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break. (g) No distinction should be made with reference to the nature of management of the institution where previous service was rendered (private/local body/Government), was considered for counting past services under this clause." 16. On perusal of Regulation 10.0, it reveals that, the person who rendered service either in the university or college should be counted for direct recruitment and promotion under CAS of a teacher as Assistant Professor or Associate Professor or Professor. In the instant case, the petitioner herein rendered her past service at affiliated colleges of the University after having due selection as per law. Moreover, the petitioner’s appointment was not as a Guest Lecturer for any duration or an adhoc or in any leave vacancy of less than one year duration. Therefore, the petitioner’s past service rendered at affiliated colleges are to be counted and the petitioner is entitled to claim CAS benefit on par with others. 17. Further, Clauses 10.1(f) and 10.1(g) of the UGC Regulations clearly demonstrate that even services rendered on an ad-hoc or temporary basis for a duration exceeding one year are liable to be counted for the purpose of the Career Advancement Scheme. 17. Further, Clauses 10.1(f) and 10.1(g) of the UGC Regulations clearly demonstrate that even services rendered on an ad-hoc or temporary basis for a duration exceeding one year are liable to be counted for the purpose of the Career Advancement Scheme. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made based on the nature of the management of the institution—whether private, local body, or government—in which the previous service was rendered; such service must be duly considered as qualifying past service under the Scheme. On conjoint reading of Clauses 10.1(f) and 10.1(g), irrespective of rendering services either in private or local body or government institutions, those services shall be counted as past services for granting benefit under CAS. Therefore, as per Regulation 10.0 of UGC Regulations, the petitioner is entitled to the claim as prayed in the writ petition. 18. Learned Government Pleader for Respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 relied upon Clause 6.3.9 of UGC Regulations 2010 to contend that the petitioner is not on rolls in the university during service during the period of consideration of CAS as Assistant Professor/Associate Professor. In this context, it is better to extract Clause 6.3.9 and it reads as follows: “6.3.9 – The incumbent teacher must be on the role and active service of the Universities/Colleges on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee for Selection/CAS Promotion.” 19. Upon perusal of Clause 6.3.9, it is evident that the incumbent teacher must be on the rolls and in active service of the University or College on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee for selection or CAS promotion. A plain reading of the clause indicates that services rendered either at a University or at affiliated colleges are to be considered. However, the learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel have vehemently contended that, as per Clause 6.3.9, only the service rendered in the University or its constituent colleges is eligible for consideration, and not service in other colleges. This contention, however, is misconceived. The term "college" as defined under the relevant regulations includes recognized private colleges, private institutions, local body institutions, and government institutions. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader and Standing Counsel that the petitioner is not entitled to any consideration under Clause 6.3.9 lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. 20. This contention, however, is misconceived. The term "college" as defined under the relevant regulations includes recognized private colleges, private institutions, local body institutions, and government institutions. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader and Standing Counsel that the petitioner is not entitled to any consideration under Clause 6.3.9 lacks merit and is accordingly rejected. 20. One of the contention putforth by the learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel is that, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Hon’ble Supreme Court in Registrar, Karnataka University vs. Dr. Prabhugouda (referred supra), the petitioner is not entitled for clubbing her past services from 1994 to 2007 and she is not eligible to be granted benefit CAS. But, such contention is not valid and sustainable, for the reason that, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court is with respect to Karnataka Universities Act and it is not at all applicable to the present facts of the case, since the State of Karnataka enacted its own regulation and did not adopt the UGC Regulations, therefore, Regulation 6.3.9 was not considered, whereas, A.P. Universities Act specifically adopted UGC Regulations, 2010, thereby, Regulation 10 of UGC Regulations is binding in respect of service matters in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the judgment relied on by the learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel i.e. Registrar, Karnataka University vs. Dr. Prabhugouda (referred supra) is of no avail. 21. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in The Mahatma Gandhi Univeristy vs. Rincymol Mathew (referred supra) is in favour of the petitioner and the facts in the said judgment are similarly situated to the present facts of the case on hand. Paragraphs 6.2 & 6.3 of the judgment read as under: "6.2 Regulation 10.1 is required to be read as a whole. As per Regulation 10.1(f), the previous appointment as ad hoc or temporary service of more than one year duration can be counted provided that : (i) the period of service was of more than one year duration; (ii) the incumbent was appointed on the recommendation of duly constituted Selection Committee; and (iii) the incumbent was selected to the permanent post in continuation to the ad hoc or temporary service, without any break. 6.3 In that view of the matter, when the respondent worked continuously right from 1998 initially as Lecturer, thereafter her probation was confirmed; thereafter she was appointed / promoted as Assistant Professor and thereafter again promoted to the post of Associate Professor on regular basis and on regular pay-scale, therefore, the respondent shall be entitled to get her regular service counted for the period from 03.10.1998 to 21.10.2011 for the purpose of grant of the benefit of CAS." 22. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above judgment and on reading of Regulation 10.1.(f) and Regulation 10.1.(g), the petitioner is entitled to get her service counted for the past service for the purpose of grant of the benefit under CAS. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. POINT Nos.3 & 4 23. One of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the succeeding Executive Council cannot reverse or review the decision of the preceding Executive Council and there is no provision in the Act for the same. Whereas, the learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel would contend that, the decision taken by the new Executive Council supersedes the decision of the earlier Executive Council, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 24. In the minutes of the Executive Council meeting dated 30.03.2021, it was resolved that the petitioner’s past services rendered outside the University were not eligible for consideration, by relying on Rule 14-A and Rule 14-B of the University Rules. Through this resolution, the earlier resolution of the Executive Council dated 20.03.2013 was set aside. However, the contention that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in light of the 20.03.2013 resolution is liable to be rejected, as it is contrary to the settled proposition of law. The said proposition is also reiterated in G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 28.06.2023 wherein it is clarified that the succeeding Executive Council cannot reverse, review the decision of the preceding Executive Council and there is no provision in the Act doing the same. If such practice is continued, it would lead to chaos in the University administration. Therefore, the resolution passed by the Executive Council dated 30.03.2021 repealing the past service of the petitioner, ignoring the resolution of the earlier Executive Council will not sustain in law. If such practice is continued, it would lead to chaos in the University administration. Therefore, the resolution passed by the Executive Council dated 30.03.2021 repealing the past service of the petitioner, ignoring the resolution of the earlier Executive Council will not sustain in law. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under CAS based on the recommendations of the then Selection Committee dated 20.03.2013. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in similar circumstances, the first respondent University rejected the resolution of the Executive Council dated 11.10.2012 reviewing the past services by ignoring the earlier resolutions of the Executive Council dated 15.05.2010 and 30.10.2018 in respect of similarly situated persons as per G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 28.06.2023. Accordingly, both these issues are answered against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner. 25. In view of my foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed with the following directions: 1. The action of the respondents in denying the benefits under CAS on the past services granting 7000, 8000, 9000 as on 7/2007 and 10000 AGP is declared as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Regulation 10.0 of the UGC Regulations 2010 and contrary to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8031/2022 dated 10.11.2022; 2. The petitioner is entitled for 7000, 8000, 9000 as on 7/2007 and 10000 AGPs w.e.f 23.7.2012 with all consequential attendant benefits. 26. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.