Antony Dominic, J.

1. The appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 32809/08 challenging Exts. P-1, P-7 and P-9, staff fixation order for the year 2007-08 and the orders rejecting her appeal and revision. Her essential claim was that she is entitled to full-time benefits as ordered by the Government in Ext. P-2, GO.(Ms) 62/73/S.Edn. dated 2-5-73 and as clarified in Ext. P-3, GO.(Ms) No. 189/82/G.Edn. dated 14th of December, 1982. The learned Single Judge held that the appellant is only entitled to part-time benefits and negatived her contentions. It is this judgment which is under challenge before us.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Government Pleader appealing for the respondents.

3. The appellant started her career as a Lower Grade Hindi Teacher (full-time) in the school of which the 4th respondent is the Manager. In Ext. P-1 staff fixation order for the year 2007-08, only five divisions were sanctioned against the pre-existing six divisions. As a result of this, there was reduction of the minimum required period of fifteen and her full-time post was converted into a part-time post w.e.f. 15-7-2007. Her appeal and revisions were rejected by Exts. P-7 and P-9 orders passed by respondents 2 and 1 respectively.

4. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of Exts. P-2 and P-3 Government Orders, she is entitled to full-time benefits. The provision for conversion of part-time language teachers into full-time as contained in Ext. P-2 Government Order reads thus;

"(vi) Conversion of part-time language teachers into full-time.

The formula for creating full-time posts in independent high schools and U.P. Schools attached to high schools will be extended to independent U.P. Schools and L.P. Schools and U.P. Schools with attached L.P. Schools. Besides this, part-time language teachers who have put in more than 5 years service and have 8 periods of work shall henceforth be made full-time. The utilisation of the services of these teachers for teaching regular classes and other subjects and giving them adequate work will be examined by the Director of Public Instruction. This will be with effect from the academic year 1973-74."

(emphasis supplied)

5. Reading of this paragraph shows that part-time language teachers who have put in more than five years service and having eight periods of work are allowed full-time benefits. Subsequently, in response to a clarification sought by the Director of Public Instruction, the Government issued Ext. P-3. The clarification sought was whether five years requirement provided in Ext. P-2 would be satisfied if a claimant has five years aggregate service. This was clarified by the Government thus:

"3. Government have examined the matter in detail and are pleased to clarify that 5 years continuous aggregate service will be sufficient to give full-time benefit as per the GO. read as 1st paper above."

6. Thus, according to the appellant, she having commenced her service as a full-time teacher in January, 2002, as on 15-7-2007, when her post was converted as a part-time post, she was having more than five years service as full-time teacher. Therefore, she says that when aggregate service is to be reckoned for determining her eligibility for full-time benefits, her service as full-time teacher should also be reckoned. It is on that basis, the appellant seeks to sustain her claim for full-time benefit as provided in Ext. P-2 Government Order referred to above.

7. Learned Government Pleader resisted this plea by contending that the benefit that is provided in Exts. P-2 and P-3 is available only to part-time teachers who have five years aggregate sendee as part-time. According to him, therefore the appellant who had service as full-time teacher does not get protection of Exts. P-2 or P-3.

8. We have considered the submissions made.

9. In our view, there is substance in what the appellant contends. We have already seen that Ext. P-2 provided that part-time l