JUDGMENT: L.N. Reddy, J. 1. The 2nd respondent is a private educational institution, which is admitted to grant-in-aid. There are certain posts in the School, which are admitted to grant-in-aid. The 1st respondent was appointed against an unaided vacancy and the competent authority i.e., 3rd appellant herein has approved the appointment through order, dated 26.03.2001. 2. A post of B.Ed. Assistant (Maths), which was admitted to grant-in-id fell vacant in the year 2004, on the retirement of a Head Master by name Srinivasa Rao. The 2nd respondent initiated steps for absorption of the 1st respondent against the aided vacancy and submitted proposals for approval. The 3rd appellant issued proceedings dated 21.06.2004 directing that the 1st respondent be absorbed against the existing vacancy of B.Ed. Assistant (Maths), subject to his being required to work as apprentice for a period of two years as required under G.O.Ms. No. 100, dated 16.08.2001. Based upon that, the salary of the 1st respondent was reduced to consolidated amount as provided for under G.O.Ms. No. 100. Aggrieved by that, the 1st respondent filed W.P. No. 23093 of 2004. 3. The 1st respondent pleaded that once he has been appointed as B.Ed. Assistant (Maths) in the 1st respondent-school against an unaided vacancy, in accordance with the Rules and his appointment was approved by the 3rd appellant in the year 2001, the question of his being required to work as apprentice, after the absorption against aided vacancy does not arise. The writ petition was opposed by the appellants. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, through order, dated 11.07.2005. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Without exception, in a private educational institution, which is admitted to grant in aid, there exist unaided vacancies also. However, in the context of appointment, the procedure is common. The candidates must be selected, a Committee has to be constituted in accordance with the Rules, and the appointment must be approved by the competent authority. The only difference would be that while in the case of appointment against unaided vacancy, the obligation to pay the salary would be on the management, in the case of candidates appointed against aided vacancies, the salary is paid by the Government. 6. Whenever a vacancy of aided post arises, one of the two courses has to be adopted. The only difference would be that while in the case of appointment against unaided vacancy, the obligation to pay the salary would be on the management, in the case of candidates appointed against aided vacancies, the salary is paid by the Government. 6. Whenever a vacancy of aided post arises, one of the two courses has to be adopted. The first is that if there exists a teacher of the same category, working against unaided vacancy and whose appointment was approved by the competent authority, he can straight away be absorbed as was done in the instant case. Where however such candidates are not available, the post has to be advertised and the candidates have to be selected and appointed. On approval being accorded by the competent authority, the appointment becomes final. 7. The Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 180, dated 29.12.2000, stipulating that the teachers who are appointed in private educational institutions, shall work for a period of two years as apprentices. Their remuneration is also fixed. The said G.O. was amended through G.O.Ms. No. 100, dated 16.08.2001, reducing the emoluments. 8. The 1st respondent was absorbed against the post of B.Ed. Assistant in the 2nd respondent-institution, when the post became vacant. While according approval for that, the 3rd appellant imposed a condition that the 1st respondent shall work as apprentice for a period of two years. On the basis of this, the salary of the 1st respondent was reduced to consolidated amount. 9. G.O.Ms. No. 180, dated 29.12.2000 and G.O.Ms. No. 100, dated 16.08.2001 are not clear as to whether it is only the candidates, who are selected afresh, to work against aided vacancies, that must be required to undergo the apprenticeship, or even those who were absorbed. Whether one goes by reason or logic, the question of a teacher whose appointment has already been approved and has been working on regular pay, being required to undergo apprenticeship on being absorbed against a aided vacancy, does not arise. The apprenticeship is a phenomenon, which is almost equivalent to training or probation, to be undergone by an employee at the threshold of his appointment. Obviously because the performance of the candidate is yet to be observed, the emoluments during that period are kept at a low level. The apprenticeship is a phenomenon, which is almost equivalent to training or probation, to be undergone by an employee at the threshold of his appointment. Obviously because the performance of the candidate is yet to be observed, the emoluments during that period are kept at a low level. In the instant case, however, the 1st respondent whose appointment has already been approved in the year 2001, has been treated as apprentice in the year 2004 on being absorbed against aided vacancy. Such a course is contrary to law. 10. In W.P. No. 17593 of 2003, the learned Single Judge of this Court has taken the same view and it was approved in W.A. No. 1083 of 2005 dated 22.08.2013. Hence, there was no justification for the appellants in reducing the emoluments of the 1st respondent. 11. Another question that was dealt with by the learned single Judge was about the manner in which the unaided service of the 1st respondent must be treated. That question would become relevant on the eve of the retirement of the employee. We leave that to be dealt with in accordance with the Rules that may be in vogue, when the 1st respondent attains the age of superannuation. 12. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. 13. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.