JUDGMENT George Vadakkel, J. 1. By my judgment dated 31st January 1974 in O.P. No. 669 of 1974 I directed that representations if any put in by the petitioners claiming that they are holding teaching posts and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the exemption given in G.O. (P) No. 323/73/PD, dated 22nd February 1973 shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The exemption claimed on the basis of the Government order aforesaid now finds a place in the proviso to rule 9 (a) (i) (2) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. The said proviso reads:” "Provided further that a person appointed under this clause by direct recruitment to a post other than teaching post and a post covered by the proviso to clause (iii) of rule 10 (b) shall not be allowed to continue in such post for a period exceeding three months." The petitioners claim that they have been appointed to teaching posts as per Ext. P-3 order. As per Ext. P-1 order the claim was overruled for the reasons: "(i) The Vocational Training Centre for the physically handicapped is imparting only job-oriented training in a few trades exclusively to the physically handicapped. Instruction is not being imparted for preparing the trainees for appearing any recognised examinations. (ii) Similar institutions under the Harijan Welfare Department are not treated as teaching institutions and similar posts of instructors in the Training Centres in that Department are not treated as teaching posts. (iii) Educational institutions are required to have regular authorised vacation (Vide Rule 60 (c) of K.S.R., Part I., The Vocational Training Centre, Kozhikode is not having such vacation."t 2. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that they are working as instructors in the Vocational Training Centre this is so is admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is further seen that the said centre was sanctioned by the Government of Kerala in 1972. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that they are working as instructors in the Vocational Training Centre this is so is admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is further seen that the said centre was sanctioned by the Government of Kerala in 1972. However, it is contended that the petitioners are imparting only job-oriented training, that they are not holding posts in educational institutions having vacations and that, therefore, they will not come under any of the groups of "teaching staff"t as defined in rule 60 (c) of the Kerala Service Rules, Part I. Rule 60 (V) of the Service Rule, Part I, through by explanation thereto includes the categories of officers mentioned therein within the words "teaching staff"t for the purpose of sub-rule (c), does not define the words "teaching staff"t much less the words "teaching posts" the words occurring in the proviso in question are "teaching posts". In view of that the third reason advanced in Ext. P-1 order as well as in the counter-affidavit would not support the respondents to hold that the petitioners have not been appointed to teaching posts. The other two reasons mentioned in Ext. P-1 order as also in the counter-affidavit do not appear to be sufficient to rule out the case of the petitioners that they have been appointed to teaching posts. The first reason mentioned is that the Vocational Training Centre for the Physically Handicapped is imparting only job-oriented training to a few exclusively for the physically handicapped. In my view imparting of even job-oriented training would amount to teaching and that it is the physically handicapped who are so taught and that what is taught is trade would not mean that the petitioners are not holding teaching posts, in so far as they are imparting training to others, it seems to me that they are teachers teachers training the physically handicapped in trades. The second reason mentioned in Ext. P-1 as also in the counter affidavit is that there are similar institutions under the Harijan Welfare Department which are not mentioned as teaching institutions and similar posts of instructors in the training centres of that department which are not treated as teaching posts. This again is no reason to hold that the petitioners are not holding- teaching posts. 3. P-1 as also in the counter affidavit is that there are similar institutions under the Harijan Welfare Department which are not mentioned as teaching institutions and similar posts of instructors in the training centres of that department which are not treated as teaching posts. This again is no reason to hold that the petitioners are not holding- teaching posts. 3. In O.P, No. 468 of 1974 with respect to a post of Junior Inspector Grade II in the Government Tailoring and Garment Making Training Centre on behalf of the respondent it was conceded that it was a teaching post. The same appears to be the position so far as the posts the petitioners are holding are concerned, 4. In view of what is stated above I hold that the petitioners have been appointed to teaching posts as I contemplated by the proviso earlier referred to and extracted in this judgment. To the above extent the original petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.