Judgment :- 1. The petitioner, while seeking to challenge the orders of the fourth respondent dated 110. 1998 in Na.Ka.No.1909/A3/94 and the confirmation of the same by the third respondent in his order dated 210. 2003 in Na.Ka.No.8259/A3/2003 also seeks to challenge G.O.Ms.No.752, Education, Science and Technology, dated 110. 1996. 2. The brief facts, which are required to be stated are that the sixth respondent school is an aided school. There was a part-time pre-vocational instructor in the said school by name Selvi.Mercy Stella. She was promoted as a full-time vocational instructor to one other school under the very same management of C.S.I. Schools, functioning at Ahoor and her promotion to the said post was also approved by the fourth respondent by his proceedings dated 112. 1995. The petitioner came to be appointed in the place of the said Selvi.Mercy Stella as a part-time pre-vocational instructor in the sixth respondent school by order dated 1. 1997. The said appointment of the petitioner was also approved by the fourth respondent by his order dated 19. 1998. However, by a subsequent order dated 110. 1998, which has been impugned in this writ petition, the fourth respondent cancelled the approval granted earlier on the ground that the predecessor of the petitioner having been promoted as a full-time craft instructor, the said post could not have been filled up by the sixth respondent. When the petitioner filed an appeal, the same came to be rejected by the third respondent in his order dated 210. 2003 stating that under G.O.Ms.No.752, E.S.T. Dept., dated 110. 1996, there was a ban to the effect that no part-time craft instructors should be appointed in the Government, Panchayat Union as well as aided middle schools and inasmuch as the petitioners appointment came to be made after the issuance of the said G.O., viz., on 1. 1997, the said appointment cannot be approved. 3. Assailing the said order, Mr.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the ban imposed in the above referred to G.O.Ms.No.752 dated 110. 1997, the said appointment cannot be approved. 3. Assailing the said order, Mr.Saseetharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the ban imposed in the above referred to G.O.Ms.No.752 dated 110. 1996 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner and that in any event, if such a ban is construed to act as a general ban, any appointments to be made in an aided school for the post of part-time craft instructor, the same is not valid inasmuch as it will result in non-availability of craft instructor in the school, where the course of vocational craft instructors was in vogue from the date of its inception. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the rejection of the approval of the petitioners appointment is liable to be set aside. 4. As against the above submissions, the learned Government pleader would contend that under G.O.Ms.No.752 dated 110. 1996, there is a specific provision stating that after the issuance of the said G.O., no fresh appointment by way of a part-time craft instructor should be made in an aided school and inasmuch as the appointment of the petitioner came to be made on 1. 1997, i.e. after the issuance of the above referred to G.O., the third and fourth respondents rightly declined to grant approval as sought for and the consequential grant of salary. 5. Having heard and after perusing the material papers, I find that the interpretation placed on behalf of the respondent-State on G.O.Ms.No.752 dated 110. 1996 cannot be accepted. A reading of the said G.O. discloses that earlier, by G.O.Ms.No.224 dated 23. 1994, 500 part-time craft instructor posts were created and appointed, that out of 500, the State Government decided to convert 173 posts in various Government, Panchayat Union and Aided schools as full-time craft instructor posts and that thereafter, there should not be any appointment of part-time craft instructors in the Government, Panchayat Union and Aided schools. Paragraph 4 of the said G.O. reads as under:- A reading of the said paragraph 4 in the first blush gives an impression as though there is a total ban of appointment of part-time craft instructor posts in the Government, Panchayat Union and Aided schools. But I am afraid, the said paragraph cannot be read in such a truncated manner. Paragraph 4 of the said G.O. reads as under:- A reading of the said paragraph 4 in the first blush gives an impression as though there is a total ban of appointment of part-time craft instructor posts in the Government, Panchayat Union and Aided schools. But I am afraid, the said paragraph cannot be read in such a truncated manner. The G.O., if read on the whole, as I stated earlier, out of 500 part-time craft instructor posts created in G.O.Ms.224 dated 23. 1994, the Government decided to convert 173 of such posts as full-time craft instructors. The Government allocated the 173 posts in the following manner, viz., 89 posts to different panchayat union schools and 84 posts to various aided schools. It is relevant to note that the sixth respondent is not one of the schools for whom any one of this 84 full-time craft instructor posts came to be allotted. As far as the predecessor of the petitioner, who was holding the part-time craft instructor post in the sixth respondent school was concerned, admittedly she was promoted as early as in the year 1995 to one of the schools run by the very same C.S.I. Management of the sixth respondent school and her appointment as full-time craft instructor was also approved by the concerned authority by order dated 112. 1995. Therefore, after her promotion made as from 7. 1995 as a full-time craft instructor, the post of part-time craft instructor in the sixth respondent school remained vacant. It is to that post, the petitioner came to be appointed on 1. 1997. 6. That apart, a further reading of G.O.Ms.752 dated 110. 1996 makes it clear that after conversion of 173 posts of part-time craft instructor of the 500 posts, the remaining 327 part-time craft instructor posts were not dismantled. The G.O. does make any mention about any of those 327 posts, which were existing on the date of issuance of the said G.O. When the predecessor of the petitioner was sent on promotion as a full-time craft instructor and due to such promotion, the said post fell vacant on 7. 1995, it can only be concluded that the said post, viz., part-time craft instructor post in the sixth respondent school was one of those 327 posts, which continue to remain even after the issuance of G.O.Ms.752 dated 110. 1996. 1995, it can only be concluded that the said post, viz., part-time craft instructor post in the sixth respondent school was one of those 327 posts, which continue to remain even after the issuance of G.O.Ms.752 dated 110. 1996. Any other interpretation of the said G.O. may result in serious anomaly, viz., that even without any specific statement to the effect that the remaining 327 part-time craft instructor posts stood abolished or dismantled, it would be open for anyone to contend that no such posts existed. Such a situation was never in contemplation as could be seen from the contents of G.O.Ms.No.752 dated 110. 1996. Viewed in that respect, the ban referred to in paragraph 4 of G.O.Ms.No.752 dated 110. 1996 can only relate to the 173 posts, which were converted as full-time craft instructor posts from and out of the 500 part-time craft instructor posts, which were created in G.O.Ms.224 dated 23. 1994. Ones such a conclusion is the only conclusion that could be drawn on a fair reading of G.O.Ms.No.752 dated 110. 1996, the appointment of the petitioner on 1. 1997 to the post of part-time craft instructor in the sixth respondent school cannot be stated to have been hit by G.O.Ms.752 dated 110. 1996. 7. Having regard to my above said conclusion on a reading of G.O.Ms.No.752 dated 110. 1996, I do not find any necessity at all for the petitioner to raise any challenge to the validity of G.O.Ms.752 dated 110. 1996. For the very same reasons, I hold that the impugned orders of the fourth and third respondents dated 110. 1998 and 210. 2003 cannot be sustained. The writ petition insofar as it relates to the orders of the third and fourth respondents impugned herein is allowed by setting aside the same. The fourth respondent is directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner based on the appointment order dated 1. 1997 and also sanction the grant for payment of his salary as part-time pre-vocational instructor as from 1. 1997 in the sixth respondent school. The arrears of wages to the petitioner should be sanctioned and paid with 6% interest from the date it fell due. The fourth respondent shall pass such orders expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition insofar as it seeks to challenge G.O.Ms.752 dated 110. 1996, however, stands dismissed.