A. J. SADASHIVA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these petitions are listed for orders, in view of the petitioners are not being paid their salary even though they have been working as lecturers from 1992, they are taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in writ petition No. 21229 of 1994 has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaring that, she has been duly appointed to the post of lecturer in biology with effect from 16-6-1989 and therefore, entitled for grant-in-aid and to quash the order dated 26-5-1993 produced as Annexure-G by issuing a writ of certiorari. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in writ petition No. 29377 of 1994 has sought for a writ directing the respondents 1 to 3 to treat her as having been duly appointed to the post of lecturer in zoology and to release her salary and pay from 31-10-1992 as recommended by the 2nd respondent institution. ( 4 ) THE admitted facts in this case are as follows :kairalee nikethan education trust, indiranagar is running a composite junior college; both the petitioners were appointed as lecturers in botany and zoology respectively in the year 1985 by the management; their appointments were approved by the second respondent by order dated February 3, 1990 as per annexure-b; while approving the appointments of 14 persons including those of the petitioners, the recommendation of third respondent for the approval of the appointments of three other persons namely, Smt. Vijaya varma, Smt. Nagambike and Sri katnavelu was rejected for the reasons mentioned therein; by an order dated 31-10-1992, the composite pre-university college was admitted to the salary grant on certain conditions. The order dated 31-10-1992 admitting the composite collects to the salary grant reads as under:"government order No. Ed 392 teu 20, Bangalore, dated 31st october, 1992 under the circumstances explained in the preamble portion, sanction is accorded for admitting indiranagar composite pre-university college, indiranagar, Bangalore under salary grant, with effect from the date of issue of this order on the following conditions: (i) to allow the grant prospectively without back arrears; (ii) to allow grant only in respect of the approved staff; (iii) to allow grant only in respect of the subject which are eligible and have completed non-grant period of five years; (iv) adequate number of books relevant to the course should be purchased immediately; (v) the expenditure on this should be met within the relevant budget provision; (vi) in case the management commits breach of all or any of the terms and conditions herein contained or if, it falsifies its accounts or other records or misrepresents facts or commits fraud, the government shall have the power and authority to stop, discontinue or withhold all or any of the payments to the management/and or to the employees under this agreement and also to recover from the management the amount found due to the government under this agreement; (vii) all the articles of the agreement made and entered between the government and the management shall be strictly adhered to; (viii) no back arrears of salary shall be claimed by the management". ( 5 ) WHEN things stood thus, the second respondent sent acommunication dated 26-5-1993, to the secretary informing him that, according to the staff pattern only one lecturer may be appointed for the subject biology and there is no approval for appointment of the second lecturer and the appointment of the second lecturer without the permission of the government is irregular and therefore, called upon the secretary of the institution to intimate the department as to the appointment of which lecturer they seek the approval and to cancel the appointment of another. Aggrieved by the said communication as per Annexure-G , the first petitioner approached this court for the reliefs mentioned in the 1st para of this order as their salary was not released. Aggrieved by the said communication as per Annexure-G , the first petitioner approached this court for the reliefs mentioned in the 1st para of this order as their salary was not released. In view of the different stands taken by the management on different occasions, as to the approval of the appointment, the 2nd petitioner filed her petition seeking for a direction to treat her appointment as having been made in accordance with law and to release her salary. ( 6 ) IT is contended by the learned high court government Advocate that, there shall be only one lecturer for the subject biology. The appointment of petitioners for the same subject is not allowed as per the staff pattern. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the direction contained in Annexure-G issued by the 2nd respondent requiring the 3rd respondent to confine the appointment as to any one of the petitioners. The contention of the learned high court government Advocate is without any substance in law for various reasons. Though biology is a single subject, it has to be taught by two different teachers, one in botany and another in zoology, as biology comprises of two different subjects. In fact, the petitioners were appointed as such, one in botany and another in zoology. It is stated by the 3rd respondent that each of them are teaching 20 hours a week, the work load prescribed for a regular teacher. Their appointments were also approved by the 1st respondent by order dated February 3, 1990. The 1st petitioner was described as a lecturer in botany whereas the 2nd petitioner is described as a lecturer in zoology. The institution was admitted to the salary grant, only in respect of the approved staff. At the time of approval, the recommendation of the management, in respect of certain persons who were found to be ineligible, was rejected. The appointments of only those who were found eligible and, who were found to have been working in the respective subjects, has been approved and the entire approved staff has been admitted to the salary grant by order dated October 31, 1992. When the entire approved staff was admitted to the salary grant, it is not open to the respondents 1 and 2, to contend that, the approval was only in respect of one lecturer in biology and not other lecturer. When the entire approved staff was admitted to the salary grant, it is not open to the respondents 1 and 2, to contend that, the approval was only in respect of one lecturer in biology and not other lecturer. It is not the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that the 3rd respondent secured the approval either by misrepresentation or by suppression of material facts. In the impugned communication, it is also stated that one of the petitioners has been appointed without permission of the government and therefore, their appointment is illegal; the said statement is contrary to the facts on record. It is clear from the order dated February 3, 1990 that the appointment of Smt. Jessie chacko, lecturer in zoology and of Smt. Geetha, lecturer in biology was approved. When the state government has accorded approval, it cannot be allowed to say that the appointment is without prior approval of the government. When once the entire institution is admitted to salary grant, in respect of the approved staff, it is not open to the state government to contend that the institution was admitted to the salary grant, in respect of only one lecturer in biology and not in respect of another lecturer. It is relevant to note that the appointment of both the petitioners was approved as lecturers in different subjects. Even otherwise, the lecturer who is mentioned as lecturer in biology is an m. sc. In botany. Both botany and zoology constitutes biology. Annexure-G is, therefore, unsustainable in law. ( 7 ) IN the result, these petitions are allowed. Rule made absolute. Annexure-G the communication dated 26-5-1993, issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent is hereby quashed. ( 8 ) BY order dated 31-10-1992 approval was accorded in respect of the appointment of both the petitioners. Therefore, they have been the lecturers of the composite pre-university college, indiranagar, and they are entitled for all salary and other benefits with effect from 31-10-1992. The respondents 1 to 3 are hereby directed to release the salary of the petitioners with effect from the date on which they are entitled to. --- *** --- .