JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioners have come to this Court by filing the present Writ Petitions seeking for the issuance of Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order of the second respondent issued in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.51108/W6/W2/02, dated 06.03.2003 and the consequential order of the third respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.3556/A2/2003, dated 06.08.2003 and the final demand of the fourth respondent dated 18.08.2003, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay salary with increments and other benefits from 01.06.2001. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fourth respondent School has appointed the petitioners as P.G. Assistant from the academic year 2001-2002 with effect from 01.06.2001. The first respondent, by G.O.Ms.No.61, School Education Department, dated 31.03.2001, has sanctioned two posts of P.G. Assistants of Botany and Chemistry to the fourth respondent's School for the academic year 2001-2002, which commenced from 01.06.2001. But, a specific order was communicated by the second respondent to the fourth respondent School dated 13.09.2001, in Letter No.Na.Ka.No.95192/W6/2000, stating that the said posts were sanctioned as per G.O.Ms.No.61 from the academic year 2001-2002. It was submitted that the Government having sanctioned two posts of P.G.Assistants in G.O.Ms.No.61, School Education Department, dated 31.03.2001, to all the schools from the academic year 2001-2002, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to state that the said sanction only from 13.09.2001 and not from 01.06.2001, for the reason that the academic year 2001-2002 begin from 01.06.2001, as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act and Rules and the Government Order that has been issued sanctioning the posts from the academic year 2001-2002. Further, when the petitioners were working in the fourth respondent school in non-sanctioned posts from 09.06.1999 and immediately when the posts were sanctioned from 01.06.2001, they were accommodated in the said posts and the approval sought for was also granted by order dated 13.03.2002 and thereafter, they were paid salary from 01.06.2001. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to recover the salary paid to the petitioners. It was further submitted that the confusion has arisen since the fourth respondent School even before receipt of the order dated 13.09.2001, has appointed two P.G. Assistant Teachers in Botany and Chemistry subjects with effect from 01.06.2001. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to recover the salary paid to the petitioners. It was further submitted that the confusion has arisen since the fourth respondent School even before receipt of the order dated 13.09.2001, has appointed two P.G. Assistant Teachers in Botany and Chemistry subjects with effect from 01.06.2001. But, by the time, the order was issued by the second respondent dated 13.09.2001, reached the Office of the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent had already appointed the petitioners as P.G. Assistants in the subject of Botany and Chemistry with effect from 01.06.2001. Therefore, the respondents raised objection for payment of salary to the teachers from the date of their appointment viz., 01.06.2001. 3. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 has submitted that when the respondents themselves has issued an order dated 13.09.2001, permitting the fourth respondent School to appoint two P.G. Assistant Teachers, the fourth respondent can appoint the teachers only from 13.09.2001 but, not from 01.06.2001. Therefore, he contended that their appointments are not proper and valid. 4. The case of the petitioners is that as supported by the fourth respondent, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education Department, dated 29.12.1997 with effect from 01.06.1998, sanctioning the posts in aided Schools and Government Schools. On the basis of G.O.Ms.No.525, School Education Department, dated 29.12.1997, the Government again issued yet another G.O.Ms.No.61, School Education Department, dated 31.03.2001, allotting two posts of P.G. Assistant of Botany and Chemistry subjects to the fourth respondent School. When G.O.Ms.No.61, School Education Department, dated 31.03.2001 was issued by the Government sanctioning two posts to all the schools from the academic year 2001-2002, as per the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act and the Rules framed thereunder, since the academic year began from 01.06.2001, the fourth respondent accommodated the petitioners, who were already working in the school in non-sanctioned posts from 09.06.1999, for which the approval was also granted by the third respondent by order dated 31.03.2002 and thereafter, the petitioners were also paid with their salaries from 01.06.2001. In such circumstances, the respondents having approved the appointment of the petitioners by paying their salaries from 01.06.2001, cannot now seek to recover the salary as they are estopped from doing so on the ground that the posts are sanctioned only from the date of issuance of order dated 31.03.2001. In such circumstances, the respondents having approved the appointment of the petitioners by paying their salaries from 01.06.2001, cannot now seek to recover the salary as they are estopped from doing so on the ground that the posts are sanctioned only from the date of issuance of order dated 31.03.2001. Such approach is against the provisions of Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulation Act and Rules, inasmuch as, the academic year 2001-2002 began from 01.06.2001. Only on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.61, School Education Department, dated 31.03.2001, the fourth respondent School has appointed the petitioners with effect from 01.06.2001. Therefore, the appointments of the petitioners made by the fourth respondent School in the subjects of Botany and Chemistry with effect from 01.06.2001 were also accepted by paying their salaries, hence the three months salary paid already cannot be recovered on the basis that the original order sanctioning two P.G. Assistant posts have been issued only on 13.09.2001, since the petitioners were appointed from 01.06.2001 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.61, School Education Department, dated 31.03.2001, that has allotted two posts of P.G. Assistants to the fourth respondent's school. 5. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have given any misrepresentation at any point of time so as to appoint the petitioners as P.G. Assistant in the fourth respondent School. When the fourth respondent school appointed the petitioners on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.61, School Education Department, dated 31.03.2001, issued by the first respondent and after approving their appointments, the respondents had also paid their salaries with effect from 01.06.2001. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to recover three moths salary. Moreover, the petitioners have already worked in the fourth respondent School from the date of appointment viz., 01.06.2001. In such view of this position, for the period they worked it is not fair and proper on the part of the second respondent to deny their salaries. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the second respondent and the consequential order passed by the third respondent are liable to be quashed and accordingly, they are quashed. 7. Resultantly, these Writ Petitions stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.