PATIL, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER herein questioning the impugned communication/endorsement dated 12th August 2003 bearing No. 5aa. 550: 2001-02: scba vide Annexure L, issued by second respondent, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3rd January 2005 vide Annexure N and release the salary of the petitioner withheld with effect from August 2002 along with interest @ 18% per annum. ( 2 ) THE only grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner was a Lecturer in 'sociology' in the fifth respondent-Evening College. As per the Government Order dated 9th May 2001, in view of bifurcation of the P. U. Course from the Composite first Grade Evening College from the academic year 2001 -02, vide annexure D, the fifth respondent -Evening college was closed from the academic year 2001-02. In the said order dated 9th May 2001, it has been specifically referred that, the lecturers working in the evening Colleges which are directed to be closed, shall be deputed to some other College wherein there is necessity of such teaching staff and that, their salary and other emoluments shall be borne by the collegiate Education itself. Thereafter, after lapse of two years, petitioner has been posted to the P. E. S. Pre university College of science, Mandya by the competent authority by its order dated 17th june 2004 vide Annexure M. But, it is the grievance of petitioner that, she has not been paid the salary and other emoluments for the period from August 2002 to 2003-04, as referred above. Therefore, she was constrained to give a detailed representation dated 3rd January 2005 vide Annexure N, narrating all the details to second respondent, requesting the authorities to release her salary in the light of the order passed by second respondent dated 9th May 2001 vide Annexure D. The said representation is neither considered nor disposed of. Instead of that, the second respondent has proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement dated 12th August 2003 vide annexure L stating that, during the period of closure of the College, petitioner is not entitled to any release of salary till she has joined the new college, on the ground that, there is no relationship of employer and employee and her request has been rejected. Assailing the correctness of the impugned endorsement dated 12th August 2003 vide annexure L and seeking appropriate direction, as referred above, petitioner has presented the instant writ petition invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. ( 3 ) I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4. ( 4 ) AFTER careful perusal of the relevant material available on file, it emerges that, in pursuance of the order passed by second respondent dated 9th May 2001 vide Annexure D, the fifth respondent-Evening College has been closed from the academic year 2001 -02, till the posting of Lecturers is made to other colleges. Further, in the said Order, it is specifically made clear that, the salary and other emoluments of the Lecturers should be borne by the concerned government Department itself till fresh postings are issued. Subsequently, petitioner has been posted by its order dated 17th June 2004 vide Annexure M to P. E. S. Pre-University college of Science, mandya run by the P. E. S. Education Society, Mandya. However, the request of petitioner for grant of salary and other emoluments during the closure of the College from the academic year 2001-02 to 2003-04 was neither considered nor the salary from the academic year 2001-02 to 2003-04 was released. Therefore, she was constrained to give a representation dated 3rd January 2005 vide Annexure N. Instead of considering the said representation with reference to the government Order dated 9th May 2001, the second respondent has issued the impugned endorsement dated 12th August 2003 vide annexure L. After careful perusal of the contents of the impugned endorsement issued by second respondent, it is manifest on the face of the said endorsement that, the second respondent has committed grave error and material irregularity for the reason that, there is no reference of the order dated 9th May 2001, pursuant to which, the evening College was closed and directions were issued for payment of salary of the Lecturers by the concerned department itself till fresh posting are made. In condition No. 8 at internal page 3 of the said order dated 9th May 2001, it is specifically made clear that, till alternative arrangements are made, the salary and other emoluments of the Lecturers of the closed Pre-University college and Composite college shall be borne by the Department of collegiate Education itself. In condition No. 8 at internal page 3 of the said order dated 9th May 2001, it is specifically made clear that, till alternative arrangements are made, the salary and other emoluments of the Lecturers of the closed Pre-University college and Composite college shall be borne by the Department of collegiate Education itself. But, it is surprising to note that, there is no whisper regarding this aspect of the matter in the impugned endorsement issued by second respondent. Instead of considering the representation given by petitioner with reference to the Order dated 9th May 2001, the second respondent has proceeded to reject the request of the petitioner on flimsy and irrelevant grounds stating that, when there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondents, the question of releasing the salary and other emoluments of the petitioner does not arise. The said reasoning given in the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained. When the said authority has passed the detailed order dated 9th May 2001, vide Annexure D, as referred above, subject to conditions, particuarly condition no. 8, wherein it is specifically pointed out that, till alternative arrangement is made and fresh posting order is issued, the concerned department is liable to pay the salary of the Lecturers of the closed colleges including the petitioner, he ought not to have issued the impugned endorsement. If the authority was of the opinion that, there was no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and respondent, he ought to have taken note of the order dated 9th May 2001 and thereafter passed the order in accordance with law. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, I am of the considered view that, at any stretch of imagination, the impugned endorsement dated 12th August 2003 cannot be sustained and hence, it is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is partly allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 12th August 2003 bearing No. 53a. 550: 2001-02: 2fo. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is partly allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 12th August 2003 bearing No. 53a. 550: 2001-02: 2fo. D. vide annexure L, issued by second respondent is hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back to second respondent for reconsideration afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, as per the detailed consolidated representation given by petitioner dated 3rd January 2005 vide annexure N and dispose of the same, with reference to the Order dated 9th May 2001 vide Annexure D, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 7 ) WITH these observations the writ petition filed by petitioner stands disposed of.