ORDER: In this writ petition, the writ petitioner prays for a direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 re-designate the petitioner’s post as Mechanic (Grade-1) by placing him in the pay-scale eligible for the post of Mechanic (Grade-1) with effect from 2.5.1988, the date of initial appointment permitting him to draw arrears of pay, allowances with all other consequential benefits. 2. According to the petitioner, one P.Daniel Simon was working as Mechanic in the Department of Physics in the fourth respondent college. He retired on 30.9.1987 and in the place of P.Daniel Simon, the petitioner was placed in the selection list prepared by the 4th respondent and thereafter the petitioner was appointed as Mechanic by the 4th respondent by issuing an appointment order dated 27.4.1988. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner had joined in the said college as Mechanic on 2.5.1988. He further submits that the said vacancy arose in pursuant to the retirement of P.Daniel Simon and the same was a sanctioned and permanent post. While so, respondents 1 to 3 are treating the petitioner only as Junior Mechanic placing the petitioner in the pay-scale for the post of Junior Mechanic illegally and violating their own proceedings. He further submits that the petitioner has passed S.S.L.C. with an additional qualification of ITI electrician certificate course as required by the third respondent. After his appointment, the 4th respondent had sent communication to the second respondent for approval and sanction. However, the 2nd respondent approved the post for the payment of salary only w.e.f., 21.12.1990, the date on which G.O.Ms. No.1704 was issued as if the petitioner was qualified for the post, only after issuing G.O.Ms. No.1764, eventhough the petitioner was qualified for the said post from the date of his earlier appointment by the 4th respondent dated 2.5.1988. 3. Inspite of several representations to the second and fourth respondents requesting to re-designate his post as “Mechanic” placing the petitioner in the scale of pay eligible to the post of Mechanic, the respondents are not properly considering the claim of the petitioner. The action of the second respondent is illegal, irregular and improper. The petitioner is eligible for the pay scale equivalent to the post of Mechanic and was also eligible to be designated as Mechanic. The action of the second respondent is illegal, irregular and improper. The petitioner is eligible for the pay scale equivalent to the post of Mechanic and was also eligible to be designated as Mechanic. The petitioner has also given an instance of a similar nature in which the “Mechanic” attached to the Physics Department of Quaid-E-Millet Government Arts College for women was placed in the pay-scale of Junior Mechanic. The petitioner contends that on his representation, the first and third respondents have revised his pay scale from the lower scale to the eligible scale for the post of Mechanic with retrospective effect. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not acceding to the request of the petitioner was illegal and discriminatory. 4. In the counter filed by the first respondent while denying the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is contended that the Government being the competent authority have every right to re-designate the nomenclature of posts in the interest of administrative convenience etc. By re-designating the post, the petitioner’s pay scale was not lowered, i.e., the pay allowed to the post of Mechanic was one and the same throughout. He was allowed the scale of pay that was allowed to his predecessor in the college. In the proceedings of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, dated 10.11.1987, it was specifically ordered that the post of Mechanic in Aided Colleges may be treated as Junior Mechanic and pay scales should be allowed to them as per Pay Commission Pay Scales. The 4th respondent appointed the petitioner as “Mechanic” on 24.7.1988. The said appointment was highly irregular and the appointment order issued to him by appointing him as “Mechanic” was totally against he direction of the Director of Collegiate Education. In the context of the instance given by the petitioner as regards the post of mechanic in the case of Quaid-E-Milleth Government Arts College for women the respondents submitted that the Government Colleges and Aided Colleges cannot be equivalent in all the matters. The post of “Mechanic” in Aided Colleges was redesignated as Junior Mechanic in Aided College through an order of the Director in his proceedings dated 29.10.1987. Therefore, the first respondent prays that this writ petition may be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is absolutely no justification to make any discrimination between the Government Colleges and the Aided Colleges. Therefore, the first respondent prays that this writ petition may be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is absolutely no justification to make any discrimination between the Government Colleges and the Aided Colleges. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on G.O.Ms. No.1221, Education Department, dated 11.10.1985 which makes it clear that the qualification for appointment of Teachers in Government Colleges and the private Colleges cannot be different and that the services of the existing incumbents will also be protected. Paragraph 3 of the said order reads of follows: 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the communication sent by the 4th respondent tracing the circumstances under which the petitioner was appointed as Mechanic as against a permanent post. Therefore, giving effect to the appointment of the petitioner as Mechanic only from the year 1990 was erroneous and that the redesignation as well as the pay scale must be given effect to from 2.5.1988. 7. I have heard the learned Government Advocate who refers to the stand taken by the Government in their counter. She would contend that the post in the private college and corresponding post in Government Colleges cannot be equated considering the Director’s order dated 29.10.1987. 8. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 9. Though the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification at the time of his appointment in G.O.Ms. No.1704, dated 21.12.1990, the qualifications were relaxed and amendment was issued under the Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service Rules. The amendment was also carried out by prescribing S.S.L.C. pass as the requisite qualification for the post of Mechanic. Therefore, the stand of the Government to the effect that the petitioner was not qualified, does not appear to be correct. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government has specifically issued order in G.O.Ms. No.1221, dated 11.10.1985 which has been extracted above ordering to treat the various posts as equivalent as between the private Aided Colleges and Government Colleges. Even apart from the said Government order, I fail to understand as to how there can be any discrimination between the private colleges and the Government colleges when the incumbent to be posted was discharging the same duties. Even apart from the said Government order, I fail to understand as to how there can be any discrimination between the private colleges and the Government colleges when the incumbent to be posted was discharging the same duties. Therefore, the discrimination which is made by the respondents between the employees of the Government Colleges on the one hand and the private Aided Colleges on the other hand does not appear to be correct. The stand taken by the Government is on the face of it discriminatory and cannot be sustained. 10. With the result, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.