T.V. NALAWADE, J.

1. The petition is filed under Articles 226, 227, 14 and 21-A of Constitution of India. The petitioner, a trust is running school for handicapped students is seeking directions against respondents, Government and Government authorities to give approval to the appointments of five staff members of school of the petitioner. Both the sides are heard.

2. The petitioner is running a deaf and dumb school. Recognition was granted to the school in the year 1990 and it was for 40 students. In the year 1995 the State Government granted 100% grant in aid.

3. By Government Resolution (‘GR’ for short) dated 18-8-2004 the State Government created new staffing pattern for the schools of aforesaid nature in respect of teaching and non teaching staff. According to the petitioner, the staffing pattern created in the year 2004 is applicable to its school as per the said GR and it is entitled to have the staff as per the new staffing pattern. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is entitled to have staff of 20 employees and as new staffing pattern came in, it was entitled to appoint five more staff members.

4. It is the case of petitioner that petitioner appointed five staff members from the year 2010 to 2012 and proposals for approval of those appointments came to be submitted on 16-6-2012 and 18-3-2013. It is the contention of the petitioner that the staff appointed by it is having necessary qualification and there was the requirement of such staff for the establishment. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have not given approval and no response is given to the aforesaid proposals made by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that even if posts are not sanctioned, in view of the needs of the petitioner, it was entitled to make such appointments and there were such decisions of this High Court given in Writ Petition Nos. 7328/2007, 6898/2011, 5914/2004, 5714/2004 and 4506/2013. It is the contention of the petitioner that in those cases High Court had given directions to the respondents to give provisional approval when there were such appointments and though the orders were interim in nature, the petitioner is entitled to get similar relief.

5. The District Social Welfare Officer has filed reply affidavit. After filing the first affidavit, one more affidavit came to be filed to cover all the contentions and it was filed by other District Social Welfare Officer. The respondents have denied that the petitioner was entitled to make appointments even before getting sanction of the posts and without taking permission of the authority to make the appointments. It is the contention of the respondents that though staffing pattern was created under aforesaid GR, that GR of staffing pattern was also not allowing the institution like petitioner to make appointments, unless the procedure given for making appointment and getting sanction in respect of posts was followed.

6. It is the case of respondents that as per the new staffing pattern, some staff became surplus in old schools which were started prior to 2004 and there was excess staff in new schools which were started afterwards. It is the case of respondents that there was problem in respect of excess surplus staff and this Court had given direction to see that the surplus staff was absorbed in some way. It is the contention of the respondents that due to such directions, steps were being taken to see that surplus staff is absorbed on other establishments and due to that no new posts were sanctioned and procedure was laid down for absorption of the surplus staff first.

7. It is the contention of the respondents that it noticed that some institutions had made the appointments illegally, without following the procedure and in some cases, the authority had given approval even when procedure was not followed by the management for getting sanction and for getting permission to make appointments and due to that respondents had issued another GR and