Judgment :- Petitioner is the Secretary of Nadar Primary School. Prayer in the writ petition is for quashing the order dated 9.1.1997 and to direct the respondents to pay the salary of two teachers with effect from the date of their appointment, that is to say, 7.4.1994 and 22.4.1994 respectively. 2. In the writ petition it is stated that on the retirement of one Mrs. Saraswathy, Secondary Grade teacher, permission was sought for from the third respondent to fill up that post and after obtaining such permission, applications were invited and subsequently one Mrs.K. Rajeswari was selected by the School Committee by the resolution dated 6.4.1994 and she joined as a teacher with effect from 7.4.1994. The School sought for approval of the appointment, but the said request for approval was turned down on the ground that no appointment could be made after 1.6.1994 and on the further ground that no trained teacher should be appointed in the place of a Secondary Grade teacher. Another teacher had resigned on 4.4.1994 which was accepted by the third respondent after due enquiry. By letter dated 5.4.1994, the petitioner sought for permission to fill up the said post and after obtaining permission by resolution dated 21.4.1994, the appointment was made and one Mrs. Amudha joined with effect from 22.4.1994. By letter dated 13.6.1994, the third respondent refused to accord approval mainly on the ground that no appointment could be made after 1.6.1994. A writ petition was filed and direction was issued on 24.6.1996 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the school. Subsequently, the fourth respondent passed an order on 9.1.1998 whereunder the appointment of both the teachers was approved with effect from 1.6.1995 onwards. The present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to pay the salary of the concerned teachers with effect from the date of their joining, that is to say, 7.4.1994 and 22.4.1994 respectively. 3. No counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, it has been submitted that since the appointments have been approved with effect from 1.6.1995, salary, if any, prior to the said date should be paid by the school. 4. Even assuming that a ban order had been passed, it appears that in the present case both the appointments had been made by the school prior to 1.6.1995. However, it has been submitted that since the appointments have been approved with effect from 1.6.1995, salary, if any, prior to the said date should be paid by the school. 4. Even assuming that a ban order had been passed, it appears that in the present case both the appointments had been made by the school prior to 1.6.1995. Subsequently, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, appointments have been approved with effect from 1.6.1995 only. Once it is found that appointments have been made in the existing vacancies within the sanctioned strength and subsequently such appointments have been approved, the approval should be taken effective from the date of the appointment. Since the concerned teachers have worked, there is no reason as to why they should not be paid salary for the period, particularly when the appointments were against the sanctioned post. 5. Having regard to all these aspects, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the salary of the concerned teachers from the date of their appointment till 1.6.1995. This order should be complied within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order. No costs.