: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5112 OF 2009 Nageshwar Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Prabhakar Shivaji Suryavanshi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar for the Petitioners. Mr. M.N. Sandhyanshiv for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.I. Khemani, AGP, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 9 TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The petitioners had appointed respondent No.1 as an ‘Assistant Teacher’. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.1 had voluntarily resigned from the services. They accepted his resignation and thereafter the petitioners had appointed one Navnath Raosaheb Aher. The appointment of Shri Aher has been approved by the Education Officer and he is now working with the petitioner No.2-School. : 2 : 3. The respondent No.1 preferred an Appeal, being Appeal No.NSK/23/2006, before the School Tribunal, Nasik, contending that he had been illegally terminated from the services on 25th July, 2005. The School Tribunal has accepted the version of the respondent No.1 and held that this was not a case where the respondent No.1 had voluntarily resigned on 18th October, 2003, but instead, the petitioners have terminated his services on 25th July, 2005. 4. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 did not join the teacher/s who would be affected by any order passed by the School Tribunal to his aforesaid Appeal. This was despite the fact that in the written statement the petitioners had disclosed that there was no vacancy in the School and that after the respondent NO.1 tendered his resignation, they had appointed Shri Aher in his post. They had also disclosed that the Education Officer had accorded approval to the appointment of Shri Aher. : 3 : 5. In my view, the School Tribunal has erred in deciding the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No.1 without joining Shri Aher to the proceedings. The order passed by the School Tribunal vitally and adversely affects Shri Aher and, in my view, therefore, he was the necessary party. 6. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21st February, 2009, passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik, in Appeal No. NSK/23/2006, is set aside and the Appeal No. NSK/23/2006 is remanded for a fresh hearing. 7. The Appeal will be decided only after Shri Navnath Raosaheb Aher is added as a party respondent and notice is issued to him. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of.