R. Gururajan, J.—The Petitioner, Prof. M.S. Ramaraju, Principal, Seshadripuram Law College, Vyalikaval, is before this Court seeking for the following prayers on the following facts:

(i) Issue an appropriate writ or order, declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to the pay scales as are admissible to the posts of Reader and Principal in the Government colleges;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction, commanding the Respondents to fix the pay of the Petitioner first in the cadre of Reader and thereafter fix his pay in the cadre of the Principal with effect from 17.6.1991 in the light of the pay scales revised from time to time since the date of his appointment and grant him all consequential benefits following therefrom;

(iii) grant such other reliefs this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of this case including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The Petitioner holds a degree in Master of Law. He joined the 4th Respondent-college as a Reader. The said college is recognised and affiliated to Bangalore University. The 5th Respondent-Bar-Council has granted approval of affiliation in respect of Three Year Day Law Course. On retirement of one Sri M.T. Ramalingaiah, the Petitioner was appointed as the Principal in terms of an order dated 8th June, 1991. He was granted a consolidated salary of Rs. 3,550/- per month. It was revised and he was paid Rs. 4,000/- in 1995. It was again raised to Rs. 5,000/- in the year 1997 and as on today he is getting Rs. 6,250/-. The Petitioner states that the service conditions are governed by the State Universities Act read with the Bangalore University Statutes and also the Bar Council of India Rules. In terms of these Statutes and Rules, according to the Petitioner, he is entitled for the scales recommended by the U.G.C. from time to time. The Petitioner has sought for the U.G.C. scales and the same is not being made available and hence he is before this Court.

3. Notice was issued pursuant to which the Respondents have filed their statement of objection. They say that the 4th Respondent is not a State and hence no writ is available. The Respondents further say that none of the private, unaided law colleges not belonging to the Government are paying scales recommended by the U.G.C. They also say that no relief can be granted.

4. Heard the Counsel for the parties.

5. Sri Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned Counsel took me through the pleadings and took me through the material facts to contend that the Petitioner is entitled for U.G.C. Scale. He also refers to me the Judgments reported in AIR 1998 SC 295; K. Krishnamacharyulu and Ors. Vs. Sri Venkateswara Hindu College of Engineering and Anr. Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others Vs. V.R. Rudani and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1607 and a Judgment of this Court reported in S.S. Anand and Others Vs. The Management of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeta (Regd.) , Bangalore and Another, (1998) 3 KarLJ 293

6. Per contra, Mr. A.Y.N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent reiterates the grounds with regard to the maintainability of the petition. He also refers to me Arya Vidya Sabha, Kashi and Another Vs. Krishna Kumar Srivastava and Another, AIR 1976 SC 1073 1976 (2) SCC 53 Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Ors. Vs. Lakshmi Narain and Ors. and Shankarappa Sharanappa Gaure Vs. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bidar and others, (1999) 1 KarLJ 438

7. After hearing the parties, the following order is passed:

8. Admittedly, the Petitioner is working as a Principal of a Law College in Bangalore. The U.G.C. has fixed the pay scales to law colleges in terms of the notification issued from time to time. The Bar Council has stated that all teachers are to be paid as per the UGC norms. They further say that the affiliation is subject to certain conditions. One such condition being the payment of U.G.C. scales. The Bangalo