THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.7214 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings dated 19- 03-2008, issued by the 2nd respondent, under the instructions of the 1st respondent, cancelling the proceedings dated 25-03-2007, issued by the 3rd respondent. It is alleged that the proceedings of the 2nd respondent are not only conflict with the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1578 of 2005, but also in violation of the interim orders dated 17-01-2007, in W.P.M.P.No.12428 of 2005 in W.P.No.9503 of 2005. Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for School Education. The subject-matter of this writ petition is the approval of appointments of Teachers of various categories against the vacancies in the petitioners-Institution, admitted to grant-in-aid. W.P.No.9503 of 2005 was filed challenging the memo dated 20-10-2004, through which the 1st respondent imposed ban on appointments or approvals in the aided institutions. An interim order was passed on 17-01-2007, directing the 3rd respondent to pass an order on the proposals, for approval of the appointments against aided vacancies, without reference to the memo dated 20-10-2004. In compliance with the same, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 25-03-2007, according approval. The 1st respondent took the view that approval ought not to have been accorded, and directed the 2nd respondent to cancel the orders of the 3rd respondent. The impugned proceedings dated 19-03-2008 came to be issued in that context. A perusal of the record in this writ petition, as well as other related writ petitions, discloses that, during the pendency of the W.P.No.9503 of 2005, the 3rd respondent passed order dated 31-03-2006, refusing to accord approval, for the appointments in the petitioners-school. W.P.No.8399 of 2006 was filed against it. This fact does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Court, when interim order dated 17-01-2007 was passed. Unless and until the order dated 31-03-2006 was set aside, the question of the 3rd respondent being required to pass any order does not arise. The consequential order dated 25-03-2007, or the resultant proceedings that emanated from respondents 1 and 2, therefore, become, in a way, superfluous. This factual position is not contradicted by any of the parties. As the things stand now, the petitioners have to work out their remedies vis-à-vis the order dated 31-03-2006. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17-07-2008. KO