Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 21.09.1999 in Na.Ka.No.2061/A1/99 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as single part-time vocational instructor in the "Electrical Domestic Appliances and Electrical Equipment" subject in the 4th respondent school. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 12.10.98 to handle the Electrical subject. He worked from 12.10.98 to 31.03.99 and again from 01.06.99 till the date of filing the original application. The 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.1177, dated 01.12.92 making provision for filling up of the sanctioned post of part time vocational instructors by the Chief Educational Officer in the Higher Secondary Schools, provided, the appointment does not result in extra financial commitment and that the total number of sanctioned post of part-time vocational instructors should not be exceeded. Another G.O.Ms.No.680, dated 20.09.96 provided that the persons from Government Departments/Quasi Government Institutions only could be appointed as part-time vocational instructors and further directed the Director of School Education to place vocational instructors strictly in the sanctioned post and that appointment should be made after verification of their qualification by the Chief Educational Officer. When the above said G.Os. provide that no part time vocational instructor is appointed against the provision of G.O., the petitioner complaints that 3rd respondent is in gross violation of G.O. mentioned above, has chosen to appoint the 5th respondent by order dated 21.09.99 as single part time instructor in the 4th respondent school in the vacancy caused by the retirement of one Mr.S.Sivasubramaniam for handling the "Electrical Domestic Appliances and Electrical Equipment" subject. The said appointment is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Counter filed by the 5th respondent specifically replies that the 5th respondent is qualified to handle the subjects of Electrical as well as Electronics. When the erstwhile Sivasubramaniam retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.97, the students in the said school were suffering without any instructor. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, Parent Teachers Association of the school took steps and made temporary arrangements permitting the petitioner to conduct classes. The petitioner was also paid through the Parents Teachers Association fund temporarily. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, Parent Teachers Association of the school took steps and made temporary arrangements permitting the petitioner to conduct classes. The petitioner was also paid through the Parents Teachers Association fund temporarily. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the petitioner should be appointed as part time instructor, when such appointment was not made in favour of the petitioner. When the petitioner was not appointed regularly by the competent authority and when the 5th respondent was properly appointed as per the guidelines issued by the G.O.No.991, dated 16.07.90, that too, in the place of retired teacher Sivasubramaniam, the petitioner cannot compare himself with the 5th respondent. 4. That apart, as rightly contended by the 5th respondent, the petitioner having not appointed by any appointment order, but he was appointed only on stop gap arrangement by the parent teachers association, the petitioner cannot make any grievance that his appointment should be considered as against the appointment of the 5th respondent. 5. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for with the impugned order and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.