JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2.Shri R.S. Deshmukh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives notice for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri S.C. Bora, learned Counsel, waives notice for the respondents No. 5 and 6. 3.On the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the name of the respondent No. 7 is deleted. 4.The petitioner has been appointed as part-time Lecturer in Hindi initially for the academic year 1988-89 on the basis of the recommendations of the local Selection Committee. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed as Full time Lecturer in Hindi in Senior College initially for the academic year 1989-90 which was approved by the University. The petitioner was appointed on probation during the relevant year and on her satisfactory performance she was continued as permanent Full time Lecturer in Hindi thereafter. Though the petitioner was entitled to get full salary through the Bank the petitioner's salary used to be credited in Bank Account No. 5161 in the Bank of India, Jalna Branch, from 1989-90 academic year and thereafter. The petitioner on instructions opened account in the United Western Bank, Jalna, bearing Account No. 4261 and the monthly salary was to be credited in the said account. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Affiliation Committee of the University visited the college. The petitioner and other Lecturers made an oral complaint that the college authorities were not giving full salary to them. In this context, it is submitted that one Shri Shaikh clerk working in the office of the respondent No. 5 used to take the blank cheques and used to withdraw the amount from the bank and on some occasions one Shri Paresh used to do it. The petitioner has produced the statement showing the amounts withdrawn on different dates and the description as to who has withdrawn the amount at Exhibit E and the petitioner relies on the same. It is submitted that the respondents No. 5 and 6 that the society which runs the college does not get full grant and therefore, in the absence of grant to full salary received from the Government, less salary is paid to the petitioner and others. The petitioner and others, therefore, approached the Administrative Officer, Higher Education Grants, Aurangabad, who did not reply the said representation of the petitioner. The petitioner and others, therefore, approached the Administrative Officer, Higher Education Grants, Aurangabad, who did not reply the said representation of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, made several representations to the authorities but there was no response. The petition is, therefore, filed for issuance of the directions to the respondents No. 5 and 6. 5.The petitioner submits that on the day when their representations as to why less salary is paid was received the respondent No. 5 served a copy of the order dated 31-3-1993 and informed the petitioner that she is made part-time Lecturer from January 1993 and it is stated that this was done in pursuance of the order dated 7-1-1993 of the Administrative Officer, Higher Education Grants, Aurangabad and the oral instructions of the Principal of 11-1-1993. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the said order suffers from mala fide and same is not binding on the petitioner and it deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 6.In view of these statements of facts alleged, on 17-4-1998 we directed the respondent No. 1 to verify whether the Arts Faculty of the college of the society is an aided faculty or not. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, an affidavit in reply is filed and it has been clearly stated that the Arts faculty is not aided faculty and therefore, the respondent No. 2 was not liable to answer the writ petition. However, in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner it was specifically stated that Arts Faculty was receiving grant in aid. The respondent No. 3 in his letter dated 17-4-1998 has admitted this position. Shri R.S. Deshmukh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, made a statement that the Arts Faculty of the college of the society attached to the respondent No. 5 has been sanctioned grant in aid from 1992. We, therefore, directed the respondents No. 5 and 6 to file a statement of amounts received by them towards salary of the Lecturers in the college. 7.Shri S.C. Bora, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6 files the tentative statement of accounts for the years 1992-93 till 1997-98. Shri Bora submits that during the year 1992-93 grant in aid for full time Lecturers was received and was paid to them. However, from 1995-96 onwards the institution received aid towards salary for part-time Lecturers in pursuance of the letter of the Government dated 7-1-1993. Shri Bora submits that during the year 1992-93 grant in aid for full time Lecturers was received and was paid to them. However, from 1995-96 onwards the institution received aid towards salary for part-time Lecturers in pursuance of the letter of the Government dated 7-1-1993. Therefore, the petitioner cannot make a grievance that she was not paid salary for the post of Full time Lecturer. Moreover, according to Shri S.C. Bora, learned Counsel, that there is now workload of Full time Lecturer available and a proposal will be sent to the respondent No. 2 for approval and on receipt of the approval the petitioner will be paid salary as Full time Lecturer. 8.On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we find it difficult to believe the statements of the petitioner that though she was shown to have been paid salary as Full time Lecturer from 1992-93, there was withdrawal of the salary through the employees of the Institution to reduce her salary as Part time Lecturer. We, therefore, reject that part of the contention of the petitioner. Shri Deshmukh, however, submits that even for the subsequent years though the petitioner was appointed as Head of the Department, she was not given salary as Full time Lecturer. In this context it is submitted that junior to the petitioner, i.e. one Shri Thakur, was appointed as Full time Lecturer and was paid salary accordingly. Our attention is invited to the letter dated 17-4-1993, copy of which is annexed at page 80 at Exhibit Q of the petition. It is clear from the said letter that the respondent No. 2 has not approved the appointment of Shri Thakur as Full-time Lecturer during the year 1993-94. Therefore, the petitioner cannot make a grievance in that behalf. If it were a case that Shri Thakur, who was junior to the petitioner, was appointed as such the petitioner has alternative remedy to approach the School Tribunal in that behalf. Therefore, the petitioner cannot make a grievance in that behalf. If it were a case that Shri Thakur, who was junior to the petitioner, was appointed as such the petitioner has alternative remedy to approach the School Tribunal in that behalf. 9.It is, however, to be noted that since Shri R.S. Deshmukh, learned Assistant Government Pleader has made a clear statement that the respondents No. 5 and 6 have been receiving grant in aid for the Arts Faculty from 1992 onwards and in view of the directions given in the letter dated 17-4-1993, the petitioner was eligible to receive salary of the post of Full time Lecturer as directed by the respondent No. 2 from the date the Institution was receiving the grant in aid provided that the appointment of the petitioner is proved to be of Full-time Lecturer. In that case the respondents No. 5 and 6 are directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the directions contained in the letter dated 17-4-1993 and submit the proposal for consideration of the respondent No. 2 and decision. The decision of the respondents No. 2 shall be final and binding on all the parties. We further direct that on receipt of the proposal for approval of the petitioner's appointment as Full time Lecturer in the institution of the respondents No. 5 and 6, the respondent No. 2 shall consider the same in accordance with the rules within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal from the respondents No. 5 and 6. 10.The writ petition is thus stands disposed of in the light of above directions. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. CC is expedited. Petition allowed with directions.