Judgment Barin Ghosh, J. 1. On 18th October, 1976, the Government came out with a policy whereby and under it decided that the colleges imparting Up-Shashtri Course for two years duration shall be entitled to appoint eight teachers. The Government, however, did not prescribe as to teach what subjects, how many of such teachers may be appointed. In the said policy decision dated 18th October, 1976, the Government at the same time prescribed that the colleges imparting Shashtri Course of three years duration shall be entitled to engage 10 teachers. It added that of those 10 teachers, two shall be engaged for imparting education in Sahitya, two for Vyakaran and two for other Shashtra subjects and the remaining four shall be Non-Sanskrit teachers. There is no dispute that Veda is one of the Shashtra subjects. The said policy dated 18th October, 1976 did not clarify as to how many teachers may be appointed by a college imparting both Up-Shashtri Course as well as Shashtri Course. On 30th January, 1979, the Government clarified the issue. It prescribed that when a college is imparting both Up-Shashtri Course and Shashtri Course, it shall be entitled to appoint additional one more teacher for each Shashtra Subject, and if it is also imparting Honours Course in each Shashtra Subject, it shall be entitled to engage one more teacher for such Shashtra Subjects, provided of course prior permission to appoint such additional teacher has been obtained. 2. A combined reading of these two decisions of the Government dated 18th October, 1976 and 30th January, 1979 will amply clarify that a college imparting Up-Shashtri Course as well as Shashtri Course is entitled to appoint 10 teachers in terms of the directions contained in the Government policy dated 18th October, 1976 and also additional one more teacher for each Shashtra Subject and if the college is imparting Honours Course in such subject, a further (sic) teacher. However, for that matter, prior sanction of the Government is required to be obtained. Therefore, a college which is imparting education in Up-Shashtri Course as well as Shashtri Course, it is, in the normal circumstances entitled to appoint 10 teachers; of whom, two shall be appointed for Shashtra Subject and, on permission having obtained from the Government, shall be entitled to appoint one additional teacher for each Shashtra Subject. 3. Therefore, a college which is imparting education in Up-Shashtri Course as well as Shashtri Course, it is, in the normal circumstances entitled to appoint 10 teachers; of whom, two shall be appointed for Shashtra Subject and, on permission having obtained from the Government, shall be entitled to appoint one additional teacher for each Shashtra Subject. 3. Admittedly, Rajeshwar Thakur Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Raghopur, Darbhanga since 1979-1980 was imparting Up-Shashtri Course as well as Shashtri Course. Accordingly it became entitled to, by reason of the decision of the Government dated 18th October, 1976, engage two teachers for Shashtra Subjects. It could appoint one more teacher for each Shashtra Subject provided it had obtained sanction of the Government, as has been spelt out in the Government decision dated 30th January, 1979. It having not taken any such permission or sanction of the Government, it was as on 5th September, 1983 entitled to appoint two teachers for Shashtra Subjects. After having had appointed a teacher for a Shashtra Subject, namely, Veda, the said college appointed the appellant in these appeals as a teacher for the self same Shashtra Subject, i.e. Veda by a resolution dated 5th September, 1983. With effect from 5th September, 1983 the appellant thus became the second Vedacharya of the college. Inasmuch as the appellant was the second Vedacharya and inasmuch as the college, without permission of the Government, was not entitled to engage a second Vedacharya, he was shown to have been engaged as a Sahitya teacher. The University provided funds to the college to meet the salaries of the appellant as such Sahitya teacher. 4. Subsequently, one Abhiram Choudhary was appointed by the college as a Sahitya teacher in the second post that was available to the college. This appointment created the conflict in between the appellant and the said Abhiram Choudhary. On 17th May, 1989, an order was passed granting approval to pay the salaries of the appellant for the months of September, 1986 to March, 1989 against the post of Lecturer in Sahitya. As a result, the appellant was treated as the second Lecturer in Sahitya. By reason thereof Abhiram Choudhary, who was appointed as the second teacher in Sahitya, was denied payment of his salaries. This compelled Abhiram Choudhary to approach this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as CWJC No. 5318 of 1989. 5. As a result, the appellant was treated as the second Lecturer in Sahitya. By reason thereof Abhiram Choudhary, who was appointed as the second teacher in Sahitya, was denied payment of his salaries. This compelled Abhiram Choudhary to approach this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as CWJC No. 5318 of 1989. 5. On 24th May, 1989, the University while dealing with many people as that of the appellant, held out that if the appellant obtains appropriate qualification in Sahitya, he shall be treated as Sahitya teacher. 6. In the writ petition filed by Abhiram Choudhary, an order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court which directed the University to pay salaries payable to a teacher, who has been appointed against a sanctioned post. Inasmuch as the appellant was not appointed against a sanctioned post, but was drawing salaries against a sanctioned post, he faced difficulty in the matter of realising his monthly remuneration. That prompted the appellant to approach this Court by filing a writ petition which was registered as CWJC No. 10698 of 1995. 7. These two writ petitions were decided by the Writ Court by a common judgment and order dated 20th February, 1998. On facts, the Writ Court found that appointment of Abhiram Choudhary in the second post of Lecturer in Sahitya was a valid appointment. This finding is based on an enquiry made by an enquiry team constituted by the University. The appellant although challenged the findings but did not cast any aspersion against the persons who gave those findings. On facts, the Writ Court could not find any material on the basis whereof a prudent person could interfere with the findings and accordingly held that Abhiram Choudhary was appointed in the second post of Lecturer in Sahitya and as such was entitled to receive his remuneration from the State Government through the University. At the same time, and as the fact is, the Writ Court found that the appellant was appointed as the second Lecturer in Veda and that such post was not sanctioned. In those circumstances, the claim for salary as was made by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition filed by him was rejected. 8. At the same time, and as the fact is, the Writ Court found that the appellant was appointed as the second Lecturer in Veda and that such post was not sanctioned. In those circumstances, the claim for salary as was made by the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition filed by him was rejected. 8. Inasmuch as by way of an interim order passed in the writ petition filed by Abhiram Choudhary, the Division Bench of this Court observed that at the conclusion of the writ petition the Writ Court may direct for recovery of salaries paid to the appellant, by the order impugned, the Writ Court directed recovery of salaries paid to the appellant. 9. As a result, these two appeals have been preferred by the appellant though against the common judgment rendered in those two writ petitions. 10. Before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it was permissible for the college concerned to engage 18 teachers in terms of the decision of the Government dated 18th October, 1976 for the college was teaching both Up-Shashtri Course as well as Shashtri Course, and accordingly it cannot be said that the appellant had been appointed in a non-sanctioned post. For the reasons, already indicated above, we feel that the decision of the Government dated 18th October, 1976 did not authorise a college imparting both Up-Shashtri Course and Shashtri Course to engage 18 teachers. It authorised engagement of the maximum, i.e. 10 teachers. In such view of the matter, the Government by its policy dated 30th January, 1979 clarified that it is permissible for such college to have sanction for one more post to each Shashtra Subjects and, in case the college is also teaching Honours Course, to have one more for each such subject. The logical conclusion, therefore, would be, having regard to the fact that the college never approached the Government for grant of sanction to appoint one more lecturer to teach Veda, the college, though authorised to engage one Veda Lecturer, engaged two Veda Lecturers, and the appellant having been the second such lecturer so appointed, such appointment was not against any sanctioned post. 11. 11. It is true that the University while preparing its budget purported to show that the college in question was entitled to engage 13 teachers and on the basis thereof obtained funds from the Government and made available the same to the college in question to pay salaries to 13 teachers. However, having regard to what has been provided by the Government in its decision dated 18th October, 1976 read with subsequent decision dated 30th January, 1979, the Government could not be approached by the University to ask for salaries for any person apart from those mentioned in those two decisions and accordingly making of budget, obtaining of funds and making available the same to the college to pay the salaries of the teachers would not change the situation. 12. The learned Counsel for the appellant then drew our attention to the fact that 34 people including the appellant was engaged to teach a subject, but was shown to have been engaged to teach yet another subject for the purpose of showing that such engagement is within the sanctioned strength and those 34 persons or some of them are still continuing as such. It was contended that the appellant should thus be equally treated. We are afraid, we cannot uphold any such decision of the University. It would be against public interest to permit appointment of a teacher in a subject and to treat him to have been appointed as a teacher of yet another subject. If that is permitted then the students for whom such appointments are being made will suffer irreparable loss and prejudice, inasmuch as they will be deprived of a teacher for a subject they are required to study, i.e. when they are required to study Physics, two Chemistry teachers will deprive their knowledge in Physics. 13. If the appellant is appointed to teach Veda and is permitted to draw salaries as a Sahitya teacher, then Abhiram Choudhary, who has been genuinely appointed as a Sahitya teacher, will not get his salaries. If Abhiram Choudhary is to be paid his salaries then the appellant cannot be paid his salaries. 13. If the appellant is appointed to teach Veda and is permitted to draw salaries as a Sahitya teacher, then Abhiram Choudhary, who has been genuinely appointed as a Sahitya teacher, will not get his salaries. If Abhiram Choudhary is to be paid his salaries then the appellant cannot be paid his salaries. We see no reason why Abhiram Choudhary, who has been appointed as a Sahitya teacher with appropriate qualification much before the University decided to grant two years time to the appellant to acquire appropriate qualification to teach Sahitya by a decision dated 24th May, 1989, should not be recognised as such Sahitya teacher. There is no dispute that the said appointment was to the post of the second lecturer in Sahitya. Even the Government decision dated 30th January, 1979 does not authorise appointment of one additional Sahitya teacher. Appointment of additional teacher in terms of the Government decision dated 30th January, 1979 is restricted only to other Shashtra Subjects like Veda, Jyotish, etc. By the decision dated 24th May, 1989, the University decided that if the appellant obtains appropriate qualification to teach Sahitya, he will be recognised as a Sahitya teacher. Inasmuch as before that decision admittedly, both the posts of lecturer in Sahitya in the college in question had been filled up, the said decision of the University is of no effect. 14. Therefore, what the appellant was getting was the salary payable to Abhiram Choudhary from the date of appointment of Abhiram Choudhary. In those circumstances, the appellant was not entitled to obtain salary from the exchequer through the University inasmuch as he had not been appointed to a post which was available for being filled up, and accordingly whatever has been paid to him should be deemed to have been paid by mistake which is recoverable under Sec. 71 of the Contract Act at any point of time. 15. In those circumstances, we would not interfere with the judgment and order rendered by the Writ Court. 16. The learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention that a Division Bench of this Court dealing with a similar matter has permitted the appellants before them to approach the Hon ble Chancellor to redress their grievances. We feel that we shall also permit the appellant in these two appeals to approach the Hon ble Chancellor for the same purpose. We feel that we shall also permit the appellant in these two appeals to approach the Hon ble Chancellor for the same purpose. We would, therefore, while dismissing both the appeals stay recovery, as directed by the Writ Court and approved by us, for a period of six months from today subject to any order that the Hon ble Chancellor may pass in the meantime, if approached by the appellant either for regularization or for stalling the recovery.