S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

3. This petition is filed seeking direction to the respondent/authorities to grant approval to the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as Teacher from 21-8-2013 in respondent No. 5 School and to release the arrears of salary of the petitioner.

4. During pendency of the petition, the proposal for approval to the appointment of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No. 3 Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur on the ground that in view of the Government Resolution dated 2-5-2012 issued by the School Education Department unless all the surplus teachers are absorbed, no approval can be granted to the fresh appointments. The petitioner has amended the petition and also challenged the said communication issued by the Education Officer. To that effect, the petitioner has incorporated prayer clause (BB).

5. It appears that the respondent Management published an advertisement in ‘Daily Punyanagari’ on 28-7-2013 thereby inviting applications for four vacant posts of teachers.

6. It is submitted by the le