R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent No: 1 , District Education Officer, on 26. 12. 1994 by which the respondent No. 3 who was declared to be surplus teacher due to closure of two classes of Jagruti Vidyalaya was allotted to the petitioner school which wanted to appoint a teacher. As stated in paragraph 3 of the said order the petitioner school was required to ask the respondent No. 3 teacher to report on duty. It was specifically directed that if the said surplus teacher was not allowed by the petitioner school to report from the date indicated in the order , he will be treated as having joined and his pay bill would be submitted on the footing that he had joined the school. It was clearly indicated that so long as the respondent No. 3 was not allowed to join the school, the salary that may not be paid to him would be deducted from the maintenance grant. The respondent No. 3 had approached the Tribunal for enforcement of the order passed by the District Education Officer and the Tribunal made an order on 31. 1. 1995 which is at Annexure-D to the petition requiring the petitioner to allow the respondent No. 3 to join the duty. The petitioner was also directed to pay his salary. Under section 38 of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 any dispute or difference between the manager of the registered private school and any person in service of such school as a headmaster, a teacher or a member of non-teaching staff which is connected with the condition of the service of such person is required to be decided by the Tribunal at the instance of the manager or such person. When this provision was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner he submitted that there was no relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 as would be covered by the said provision and it was essentially a Us between the petitioner and the District Education Officer. The order of the District Education officer clearly states that the respondent No. 3 will be deemed to have joined the duty as teacher of the petitioner school if he is not allowed to join by the petitioner as directed under the said order. The order of the District Education officer clearly states that the respondent No. 3 will be deemed to have joined the duty as teacher of the petitioner school if he is not allowed to join by the petitioner as directed under the said order. Therefore, the dispute regarding the petitioner not allowing the respondent No. 3 to report for duty, though he is deemed to have joined the school under the said order would clearly fall under Section 38 (1) of the said Act. The Tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain such dispute and give its own decision under the said provision. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel during the course of his arguments then submitted that there was a draft amendment pending by which the petitions wanted to challenge the government Resolution dated 21. 5. 1994. The draft amendment was granted and the petitioners counsel was allowed to make submissions against the validity of the said resolution. It is contended by him that the said Resolution by which the surplus teachers were required to be absorbed at the instance of the District Education Officer was arbitrary and unconstitutional. It was submitted that the only known mode of appointment of such teachers was as prescribed by Section 35 (1) of the said Act and since the effect of the impugned order passed by the District Education Officer would be to appoint the respondent No. 3 as teacher in the petitioner school, it would be an appointment in contravention of Section 35 (1) which contemplates recruitment to be made by the selection Committee. It was submitted that as provided by sub-section (7) of Section 35 since this appointment was in contravention of Section 35 (1), it was ineffective. There is absolutely no substance in this contention. The appointment which is contemplated under Section 35 (1) is a fresh appointment and it is not an absorption of teachers who are declared surplus due to closure of classes. The petitioner which is a grant-in-aid school is required to follow the directives under the Resolution dated 21. 5. 1994 issued by the Government under the provisions of Sections 48 and 58 of the said Act and other enabling provisions. The direction to absorb a surplus teacher in a school which requires a teacher and which has opted to run on grant cannot be said to be unjust or arbitrary. 5. 1994 issued by the Government under the provisions of Sections 48 and 58 of the said Act and other enabling provisions. The direction to absorb a surplus teacher in a school which requires a teacher and which has opted to run on grant cannot be said to be unjust or arbitrary. If at all it would be very just arrangement to ensure that teachers, who have been declared surplus for no fault of theirs and only because of closure, are absorbed in other schools where teachers are needed. The challenge against the impugned resolution cannot therefore be sustained. It was also submitted that the Resolution does not provide for consultation with the school concerned before a teacher is allotted to such school. In the context of things, it would be impossible to enforce such allotment if it is to depend on the consent of the school concerned. The grant-in-aid school which needs a teacher is alloted a teacher who is declared surplus by the District Education Officer and in such a situation there would be no need to consult the school concerned. Absence of such consultation cannot be in any manner treated as violation of any principles of natural justice inasmuch as the salary of a teacher is paid by the State and while allotting a surplus teacher to a school wanting a teacher, no decision adverse to the school is taken which may require a hearing to be given. The petition is therefore without any substance and is rejected. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. .