S.K.Krishnan, J.: The appellants, who aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18963 of 1996, dated 21.6.2001 have filed this appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal, are as follows: "One P.Daniel Simon had worked as Mechanic in the Department of Physics, in the second respondent College and retired on 30.9.1987 and that vacancy was filled up by the second respondent by appointing the first respondent, vide appointment order dated 27.4.1988. Pursuant to the same, the first respondent had joined in the said College as Mechanic on 2.5.1988. Though the first respondent was working in the place of Mechanic, he was fixed in the scale of pay of a junior Mechanic by the appellants in contra to their own proceedings. The first respondent passed S.S.L.C. examination and also completed electrician certificate Course in an I.T.I., as required by the third respondent. After the appointment of the first respondent, the second respondent sent a proposal to the second appellant for approval and sanction. However, the second appellant approved the post only with effect from 21.12.1990, the date on which G.O.Ms.No.1704 was issued as if the first respondent was qualified for the said post, only after issuing G.O.Ms.No.1764, even though the first appellant qualified for the said post from the date of his appointment, namely, 2.5.1988, by the second respondent. Despite several representations to the second appellant and the second respondent, the first respondent was fixed in the scale of pay of Junior Mechanic, instead of in the scale of pay of Mechanic. Hence, the first respondent filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.18963 of 1996 before this Court, wherein, the learned single Judge of this Court, directed the third respondent to pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks, against which, the appellants have come forward with this appeal." 3. Heard both sides. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is that the first respondent has to be given the status of mechanic from the date of his appointment, that is, 2.5.1988, by redesignating him as mechanic and fixed in the scale of play of mechanic with effect from 2.5.1988 and sanction the consequential arrears to him. 5. The learned Judge of this Court, considering the circumstances and the plea of the first respondent, allowed the petition as prayed for. 5. The learned Judge of this Court, considering the circumstances and the plea of the first respondent, allowed the petition as prayed for. While considering the plea of the first respondent, the learned Judge of this Court, relied on the 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, allowed the writ petition in favour of the first respondent. 6. While disposing the Writ Petition, the learned single Judge has observed as follows: "However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Government had specifically issued order in G.O.Ms.No.1221, dated 11.10.1995 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. 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." 7. Now the only point that has to be decided in this appeal is whether the order of the learned single Judge of this Court is sustainable under law or not. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that there is no justification in treating differently technicians working in the Government Colleges and the Aided colleges other than the teaching staff. While disposing the writ petition, the learned single Judge of this Court referred the relevant G.O. for arriving a just decision in this matter. 9. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that as per the proceedings of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education, dated 29.10.1987 the post of Mechanic in aided colleges has to be redesignated as "Junior Mechanic". In such circumstances, for the better appreciation of the case it is pertinent to refer to the said proceedings for arriving a just decision in this case. 10. In such circumstances, for the better appreciation of the case it is pertinent to refer to the said proceedings for arriving a just decision in this case. 10. In the proceedings of the Deputy Director of the Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli, in Se.Mu.No.56581/A4/87, dated 29.10.1987, it is stated as follows: 11. Further on the basis of the letter addressed by the Deputy Director of the Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli, to the second respondent, dated 15.3.1989, who rejected the plea of the first respondent on the ground that the first respondent was not possessing the required qualification for the post of mechanic as prescribed under Sub-clause 2-A to Clause XII. In such circumstances, the claim of the first respondent cannot be accepted. Based on the said proceedings dated 29.10.1987, the appointment of the first respondent as junior mechanic was approved on the basis of the G.O.Ms.No.1704, dated 21.12.1990. 12. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would vehemently contend that even though the claim of the first respondent as mechanic was not considered by the concerned authority on the ground that he is not possessing necessary qualifications as prescribed under the Tamil Nadu General Subordinate Service Rules, the services of the similarly placed persons like the first respondent in some other private colleges have been approved and they have been given the status of "Mechanic". In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent referred to a letter dated 26.3.1996, which is available in the typed set at page No.29, addressed by the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Tirunelveli Region, to the Secretary, Hindu College, Nagercoil. On a perusal of the said letter reveals that, it accepted the direct appointment of one Kolappan as "Mechanic" and permission was granted to get grant from the Government exhequer. 13. It is to be noted that subsequent to the G.O.Ms.No.1704, dated 21.12.1990, a separate G.O. was issued approving the appointment of the incumbent as "Mechanic" in G.O.Ms.No.997, Education (G2) Department, dated 26.10.2003. 14. It is to be pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that no Government Order has been issued by the Education Department recognising the status of technicians as "Junior Mechanic", but the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education has issued such proceedings recognising the status of technicians as junior mechanic. As already stated above, technicians have been appointed as mechanic in some other colleges. As already stated above, technicians have been appointed as mechanic in some other colleges. 15. In such circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would vehemently contend that the proceedings issued by the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education dated 29.10.1987 is not sustainable under law or on facts. Therefore, basing on this proceedings, the rejection of the claim of the first respondent’s plea by the second respondent is not sustainable under law. In such circumstances, it is pointed out by the learned counsel that considering equal status referred in the G.O.Ms.No.1221, Education Department, dated 11.10.1985 the learned singe Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition in favour of the first respondent. In this juncture the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend that the rejection order, passed by the college authorities, approving the appointment of the first respondent as junior mechanic from 21.12.1990 is not at all sustainable under law and liable to be set aside. 16. In the light of the discussions held above and also considering the various Government orders and the proceedings of the Director of Collegiate Education and the Deputy Collector of Collegiate Education, we are not inclined to allow this appeal. 17. As pointed out by the learned single Judge of this Court that there should not be any discrimination with regard to status of the technicians working in Government Colleges and in the private colleges. 18. We find that there are valid reasons for rejecting the Writ Appeal and accordingly, we reject the plea of the appellant as not sustainable. In such circumstances, this writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. No costs.