C. V. RAMULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Petiuon is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the salaries due to the petitioner from 3-3-1997 to till date as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to pay the salaries due to him. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner she was selected and appointed by the Staff selection Committee on 25-2-1997 against unaided secondary grade teacher vacancy in the fourth respondent school. The said appointment was approved by the competent authority as required under law. She joined and reported for duty on 3/03/1997 and since then the petitioner is being continuously engaged as teacher till date, but her salary is not being paid though her services are being utilized regularly. The petitioner asserts that under G. O. Ms. No. 1, education, dated 1-1-1994 as per Rule 17 of the Rules she is entitled for being paid salaries as prescribed by the Governing body of the Educational Institutions. According to the petitioner in the very appointment order it was made clear that she is entitled for pay scales on par with s. G. B. T. teachers appointed against the unaided vacancies. Though this is the position, the petitioner is deprived ot salaries since last more than six years. ( 3 ) COUNTER has been filed by the fourth respondent. It is not disputed that the petitioner was selected by a duly constituted selection Committee and her appointment was ratified by the competent authority as required under law and she joined duly on 3/03/1997. In Para 11 of the counter it is stated that the school is not collecting any fees from any of its students except rs. 4. 50 per student per year for the purpose of examination. Except that, the school is not getting any income from the students, anybody or persons concerned. It is further asserted that Rules 17 and 18 of g. O. Ms. No. 1, Education, dated 1-1-1994 are not applicable to the 4th respondent school and the school is not held responsible to pay the salaries of the petitioner. The said rules as contemplated under G. O. Ms. No. 1 are applicable only where any fees is collected by the school. Therefore, the 4th respondent School is not liable to pay the salaries to the petitioner. The said rules as contemplated under G. O. Ms. No. 1 are applicable only where any fees is collected by the school. Therefore, the 4th respondent School is not liable to pay the salaries to the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE counsel for the petitioner placed thrust on Rule 17 of the G. O. Ms. No. 1, education, dated 1-1-1994, which reads as follows:"17. Criteria and Procedure for fixing salary structure for the Staff: (1) The staff appointed in un-aided private schools and those appointed in the un-aided posts of the higher classes of the upgraded school shall be paid salaries as prescribed by the governing body attacned to the school as constituted under rule 15. (2) In order to meet the expenditure, it is open for the private management of unaided schools to collect fees at the rates prescribed by the governing Body , as per criteria indicated in Rule 18. (3) The Governing Body shall fix the salary structure of the staff taking into account the revenue position of the institution and other requirements mentioned under sub-rule (4) of Rule 18 for which amounts are to be earmarked. Approximately 50% of the total revenue collection as fee from students shall be earmarked for payment of regular salaries to the staff and 15% of the revenue shall be earmarked for providing various benefits like Teacher s Provident fund, Group Insurance etc. " ( 5 ) FROM the above, it is clear that any person appointed against un-aided post he shall be paid salaries as prescribed by the governing Body attached to school as constituted under sub-rule (3) of Rule 17. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner was put on probation as per the instructions of the Government, the petitioner is er. titled for Rs. 1200 per month as remuneratioi, for the first year and rs. 1500 per month for the second year and the salary as fixed by the Governing Body thereafter. Neither the salary is paid nor the governing Body has fixed the salary of the petitioner as required under Rule 17 of the said G. O. ( 7 ) ONCE there is an appointment and the same is approved by the authority concerned, the Governing Body is supposed to fix the salary of a teacher working against an unaided post. Neither the salary is paid nor the governing Body has fixed the salary of the petitioner as required under Rule 17 of the said G. O. ( 7 ) ONCE there is an appointment and the same is approved by the authority concerned, the Governing Body is supposed to fix the salary of a teacher working against an unaided post. In this case no such decision was taken by the respondent except stating that the petitioner is not entitled for any salary since the institution is not collecting any fees from the students. The same seems to be irrational. The very appointment order dated 25-2-1997 says that the petitioner is appointed against an un-aided vacancy in the scale of SGBT Post applicable to aided schools and she will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining duty. All these things show that the petitioner is entitled for salary, of course, as fixed by the Governing Body of the Institution as constituted under Rule 15 of the Rules. ( 8 ) UNDER these circumstances, the 4th respondent is directed to fix the salary of the petitioner, by convening a Governing Body meeting within a period of two months from to-day, as felt appropriate by them and pay the arrears till date, within a period of three months from to-day and thereafter, salary fixed by the respondent shall be paid to the petitioner regularly. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.