1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.73 OF 2002 1.Laxmi Education Society, 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. 2. The Principal, Sir.M.V.College of Science & Commerce, Seth L.U.Jhaveri College of Arts, Dr.S.Radhakrishna Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. 3. The Principal, Shri Chinai College of Commerce & Economics, Dr.S.Radhakrishnan Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. ...Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra, through the Government Pleader, Original Side, Mumbai. 2.The Joint Director, Department of Higher Education, Mumbai Divisional Officer, Elphinstone Technical School Campus, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai – 400 001. 3.The Deputy Director of Education, Greater Mumbai, Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 004. 4.The Director of Education, Higher Education, Pune. 5.The University of Bombay, M.G.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 023. ...Respondents ...... 2 WITH APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1246 OF 2008 The Chairman/Secretary, Laxmi Education Society, 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ....Appellant (Ori.Respdt. No.2) Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State (Higher Secondary Central Building, Opp. Collector’s Office, Pune 411 001. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Greater Mumbai, Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Road, Charni Road, Mumbai 400 004. 4. Shri Gopalkrishna N. Gaggar, 134/3567, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar, Mumbai 400 075. 5. The Principal, Sheth M.V.L.U. Junior College and Chinoy College of Arts, Science And Commerce, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Marg, Andheri(East) Mumbai 400 069. ...Respondents (Nos. 1to 3 – Or.Petitioners Nos.4 & 5-Ori.Respdt.Nos.1 & 3) 3 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2497 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1246 OF 2008 The Chairman/Secretary, Laxmi Education Society, 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ....Appellant (Ori.Respondent No.2) Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 2. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State (Higher Secondary Central Building, Opp. Collector’s Office, Pune 411 001. 3. The Deputy Director of Education, Greater Mumbai, Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Road, Charni Road, Mumbai 400 004. 4. Shri Gopalkrishna N. Gaggar, 134/3567, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar, Mumbai 400 075. 5. The Principal, Sheth M.V.L.U. Junior College and Chinoy College of Arts, Science And Commerce, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Marg, Andheri(East) Mumbai 400 069. ...Respondents (Nos. 1to 3 – Ori.Petrs.Nos. 4 & 5- Ori.Respdt.Nos.1 & 3) ....... 4 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2008 Laxmi Education Society, Registered Trust through its Trustees, having office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai. .....Petitioner Versus 1. The Director of Education, Central Bldg., Pune 400 101. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 3. Laxmi Charitable Trust, Registered Trust through its Trustees, having office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai .....Respondents WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 246 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2008 1. Laxmi Education Society, a registered Trust through its Trustees, having office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Hemant Vissanji, of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant, Trustee and Honorary Secretary of Laxmi Education Society, a Regd. Trust having office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. .....Petitioners 5 Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, 2. Secretary, State of Mah. (Respondent No. 1 & 2 to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court (O.S.) Mumbai. 3. M.R. Kadam, The Director of Education, Central Building, Pune 400 101 4. Smt. Sheela Tiwari, Dy. Director of Education, Mumbai (School Education Department), Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road (West) Mumbai 400 004. 5. Shri V.S.Mhatre, Asst. Director of Education, Mumbai (School Education Department), Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road (West), Mumbai 400 004. ....Respondents 6. Gopalkrishna N. Gaggar, residing at C/o 134/3567, Pant Nagar, Ghatkopar, Mumbai 400 075. .....Applicant/Intervenor (Prop.Respdt.No. 6) WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 248 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2008 1. Laxmi Education Society, a registered Trust through its Trustees, having office 6 at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Hemant Vissanji, of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant, Trustee and Honorary Secretary of Laxmi Education Society, a Regd. Trust having office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. .....Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, 2. Secretary, State of Mah. (Respondent No. 1 & 2 to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court (O.S.) Mumbai. 3. M.R. Kadam, The Director of Education, Central Building, Pune 400 101 4. Smt. Sheela Tiwari, Dy. Director of Education, Mumbai (School Education Department), Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road (West) Mumbai 400 004. 5. Shri V.S.Mhatre, Asst. Director of Education, Mumbai (School Education Department), Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road (West), Mumbai 400 004. ....Respondents And 1. Shailendra Eknath Kamble Co-Convener of LUMV Chinai College Bachhav Samiti residing at 7 B/232 Apli Ekta SRA CHS Navpada, Marol Naka Andheri-Kurla Road Mumbai 400059. .....Applicant WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 304 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2327 OF 2008 1. Laxmi Education Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. 2. Hemant Vissanji of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant, Trustee and Honorary Secretary of Laxmi Education Society, a registered trust having office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. .....Petitioners Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, 2. Secretary, State of Maharashtra, (Respondent No. 1 & 2 to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court (O.S.) Mumbai. 3. M.R. Kadam, The Director of Education, Central Building, Pune 400 101 4. Smt. Sheela Tiwari, Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai (School Education Department), Jawahar Balbhuvan, Netaji Subhash Marg, 8 Charni Road (W) Mumbai 400 004. 5. Shri V.S.Mhatre, Asstistant Director of Education, Mumbai (School Education Department), Jawahar Balbhuvan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road (W), Mumbai 400 004. ....Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 338 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION No. 2327 OF 2008 The Chairman/Secretary, Laxmi Education Society, 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. .....Petitioner Versus 1. The Director of Education, Maharashtra State (Higher Secondary) Central Building, Opp. Collector’s Office, Pune-411001. 2. State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. 3. Laxmi Charitable Trust, a registered Trust, through its Trutees, having office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai. ....Respondents ..... 9 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2521 OF 2008 Laxmi Charitable Trust, a educational Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, having its office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai. ...Petitioner Versus 1.State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Education, with service to be done on Government Pleader, Bombay High Court. 2.The Director of Education, Secondary & Higher Secondary Education, Department of Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune-400 101 AND at Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road-West, Mumbai – 400 001. ...Respondents WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.330 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2521 OF 2008 Laxmi Charitable Trust, a educational Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, having its office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai. ...Petitioner Versus 1.State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Education, with service to be done on Government Pleader, Bombay High Court. 2.The Director of Education, Secondary & Higher Secondary Education, Department of Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune-400 101 AND at 10 Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road-West, Mumbai – 400 001. ...Respondents ...... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1640 OF 2009 1.Madhu Rambal Subramaniam, age 45 years, A-2/3, Shriram Nagar, S.V.Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058. 2.Pundalik Vishnu Ghadigaonkar, age 45 years, Saisharan Co-op. Hsg. Society, Room No.407, 4th floor, Pump House, Jijamata Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093. 3.Sudhakar B. Tiwari, age 41 years, Room No.3, Hari Tiwari Chawl, Gundavali, Old Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 069. ....Petitioners Versus 1.State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2.The Director of Education, Secondary & Higher Secondary Education, Department of Education, Maharashtra State, School Building, Pune-411 101 AND at Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road (W), Mumbai – 400 001. 3.Laxmi Charitable Trust, Registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, having its office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. 4.Laxmi Education Society, Registered Public Trust having its Office at a Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. ...Respondents 11 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.307 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1640 OF 2009 1.Madhu Rambal Subramaniam, age 45 years, A-2/3, Shriram Nagar, S.V.Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058. 2.Pundalik Vishnu Ghadigaonkar, age 45 years, Saisharan Co-op. Hsg. Society, Room No.407, 4th floor, Pump House, Jijamata Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093. 3.Sudhakar B. Tiwari, age 41 years, Room No.3, Hari Tiwari Chawl, Gundavali, Old Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 069. ....Petitioners Versus 1.State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2.The Director of Education, Secondary & Higher Secondary Education, Department of Education, Maharashtra State, School Building, Pune-411 101 AND at Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road (W), Mumbai – 400 001. 3.Laxmi Charitable Trust, Registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, having its office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. 4.Laxmi Education Society, Registered Public Trust having its Office at a Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. ...Respondents 12 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.385 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITON NO.1640 OF 2009 1.Madhu Rambal Subramaniam, age 45 years, A-2/3, Shriram Nagar, S.V.Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 058. 2.Pundalik Vishnu Ghadigaonkar, age 45 years, Saisharan Co-op. Hsg. Society, Room No.407, 4th floor, Pump House, Jijamata Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093. 3.Sudhakar B. Tiwari, age 41 years, Room No.3, Hari Tiwari Chawl, Gundavali, Old Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 069. ....Petitioners Versus 1.State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2.The Director of Education, Secondary & Higher Secondary Education, Department of Education, Maharashtra State, School Building, Pune-411 101 AND at Jawahar Bal Bhavan, Netaji Subhash Marg, Charni Road (W), Mumbai – 400 001. 3.Laxmi Charitable Trust, Registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, having its office at 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. 4.Laxmi Education Society, Registered Public Trust having its Office at a Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. ...Respondents 13 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1638 OF 2009 Prof.Mohan Pillai, Part time Teacher in Business law at Laxmi Charitable Trust M.V. & L.U. College of Arts, Science & Commerce, Mumbai, residing at 304, `Anant Ravi’ Plot No.230, Sector-5, Charkop, Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400 067. ...Petitioner Versus 1.Mr.Hemant Visanji, The President & Secretary, Laxmi Charitable Trust, 9, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. 2.The Principal, M.V. & L.U. College of Arts, Science & Commerce, Dr.S.Radhakrishna Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. 3. The Principal, Shri Chinai College of Commerce & Economics, Dr.S.Radhakrishnan Marg, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. 4. Deputy Director, Education Department, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai. 5. State of Maharashtra, Thru Government Pleader, High Court, Bombay. ...Petitioners ........ Mr.S.H.Mehta i/b. Madekar & Co. for Petitioner in WP Nos.73/2002 and WP No. 2521/08 and for Respondent No.3 in WP No.1640/09. 14 Mr.M.P.Rao,Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.Girish Kulkarni i/b. Prakash Mahadik & Co. for Appellant in Appeal No.299/08. Mr.M.P.Rao, Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.Girish Kulkarni i/b. A.G.Kothari for Petitioner in WP No.2327/08 and for Respondent No.4 in WP No.1640/09. Ms.Gayatri Singh i/b. Bhavana Mhatre for Petitioners in WP No.1640/09. Mr.Mohan Pillai, Petitioner present in person in WP No.1638/09. Mr.Nilesh Pawaskar, Sp. Counsel a/w Mr.B.H.Mehta, AGP for State in all matters. ...... CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR,CJ. AND A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. RESERVED ON :- NOVEMBER 24, 2009. PRONOUNCED ON :- DECEMBER 10, 2009. JUDGMENT: (Per A.M.Khanwilkar,J.) 1. We propose to dispose of all the six main matters and the derivative proceedings therein together by this Judgment. For, all these matters pertain to the same educational institution, which had started and administering two junior colleges in question on grant in aid basis and also because the issues raised are overlapping. 2. The main proceedings(Writ Petitions) are filed by the Management on one hand and by the Public spirited persons espousing the cause of the students on the other. Besides, the above numbered appeal being Appeal 15 No.299 of 2008 arises out the decision of the School Tribunal. This Appeal is filed by the Management against the decision of the School Tribunal on the appeal instituted by the permanent employees of the junior colleges, who in turn challenged their termination on account of closure of junior colleges. 3. The first main Petition being W.P.No.73 of 2002 which is in earlier point of time, has been filed by three Petitioners-the Management(Laxmi Education Society), the Principal of Sir. M.V.College of Science and Commerce, Seth L.U.Jhaveri College of Arts and the Principal of Shri Chinai College of Commerce & Economics respectively. According to the Management, they were running two colleges for Arts and Commerce and Science and Economics and Commerce faculties which were affiliated to the University of Mumbai. All the three Colleges were receiving 100% grants from the State of Maharashtra. However, in due course the State stopped disbursing non-grant salaries payable to the concerned colleges, as also failed to carry out requisite assessment of accounts within a reasonable time and did not revise their fees structure. As the Colleges were aided colleges, there was restriction on amount of fees to be collected from the students. As a result, the Colleges were facing severe financial hardship 16 and led to a situation where it was practically impossible to run and manage the Colleges and conduct classes. It is in this backdrop the Management filed the said Petition for the following reliefs. “a) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, conduct and complete the assessment for the Junior Colleges run by the petitioner No.2 from the year 1991-92 and furnish the Assessment Reports and be further directed to assign, reasons in the event certain expenditure were to be disallowed; b) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, conduct and complete the assessment for the Junior Colleges run by the Petitioner No.3 from the year 1995-96 and furnish the Assessment Reports and be further directed to assign, reasons in the event certain expenditure were to be disallowed; c) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, effect payments of the non-salary expenditure incurred by the Junior Colleges run by the Petitioner No.1 as per Exhibit C; d) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, conduct and complete the assessment for the Degree Colleges run by the Petitioner No.2 from the year 1997-98 and furnish the Assessment Reports and be further directed to assign, reasons in the event certain expenditure were to be disallowed; e) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, conduct and complete the assessment for the Degree Colleges run by the Petitioner No.3 from the year 1998-99 and furnish the Assessment Reports and be further directed to assign, reasons in the event certain expenditure were to be disallowed; 17 f) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, effect payments of the non-salary expenditure incurred by the Degree Colleges run by the Petitioner No.1 as per Exhibits G-1 & G-2; (f1) to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to evolve a proper fee structure keeping in mind the financial crisis faced by the Petitioners Institution and revise the fee structure accordingly in respect of the Junior Colleges; (f2) to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to evolve a proper fee structure keeping in mind the financial crisis faced by the Petitioners Institution and revise the fees structure accordingly in respect of the Degree Colleges; g) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition ad-hoc payments in respect of the non-salary expenditure on the basis of the audited accounts furnished by the Petitioners as well as the guidelines detailed in the Government Resolution and Circular for effecting payments as per number of Divisions/percentage of salary formula for both the Junior as well as Degree Colleges; h) ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (g) above; i) such other and further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. j) costs of this Writ Petition be provided for.” 4. The second main matter is Appeal No.299 of 2008, which is again filed by the Management. In this Appeal, the Management has challenged the Judgment of the Learned Single Judge of our High Court dated 30th June, 2008 passed on WP No.1246 of 2008 and other 8 connected Petitions, which in turn were filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the 18 decision of the School Tribunal dated 3rd November, 2007. The proceedings before the School Tribunal were instituted by respective permanent employees questioning the action of termination of their services by the concerned colleges. 5. Here it may be relevant to advert to the background in which the said appeals were filed by the permanent employees before the School Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the learned Single Judge has meticulously reproduced the relevant facts in the impugned Judgment, which is reported in 2008(6) Bombay C.R. 451. To obviate repetition and prolixity, we would conveniently refer to the facts so reproduced. We would only highlight the broad facts, that would be relevant to decide the controversy on hand. The Management passed resolution on 14th February, 2007, whereby it was decided that the two junior Colleges run by the Educational Institution should be closed. This decision, according to the Management, was necessitated on account of non-receipt of non-salary grants for considerable long time, which was quite substantial amount. It had become impossible for the Management to continue to run the two Junior Colleges any more, due to severe financial burden. Besides, there was no sufficient response and the students ratio was depleting, which was making it unviable to run 19 the two junior colleges, which were started sometime in 1975 after introduction of 10+2+3 course. Moreover, the two junior colleges were started in the same building where the degree college run by the Management was already functional. According to the Management, it was felt that the space occupied by the Junior Colleges can be effectively utilised for introducing new courses in the degree college. For all these reasons, the Management decided to close down the two junior colleges. As a consequence of the said decision, the Management issued notice to its permanent employees in two junior colleges, purported to be under Rules 25A/26 of The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), informing the concerned permanent employees that his/her services were terminated and would be no longer required as the Management (Laxmi Education Society) has decided to close the Junior Colleges run by it. In that, 11th Standard of Colleges would be closed down at the end of the first term of the academic year 2007-2008. The 12th Standard of the colleges would be closed down at the end of the second term of the academic year 2007-2008 and the Junior Colleges would be completely closed down by the end of the Second term of 2007-2008. For that reason, the services of the concerned permanent employees to whom such notices were issued were no longer 20 required beyond the end of the academic year 2007-2008. The permanent employees of the junior colleges on receipt of such notices rushed to the School Tribunal and filed appeals under section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 6. During the pendency of the said appeals before the School Tribunal, three Writ Petitions were filed before this Court being Writ Petition(L) No. 1379 of 2007, Writ Petition (L) No.1569 of 2007 and PIL Writ Petition No. 55 of 2007. The first amongst these Writ Petitions, (first two Writ Petitions), were filed by the Management(Laxmi Education Society Trust), which was running two junior colleges, seeking declaration that the closure notice issued by the Management was legal and proper and further the show cause notice issued by the Director of Education proposing to appoint an administrator to run the two junior colleges was illegal and unjustified and to quash the same and pass consequential directions. The third Writ Petition was filed by one Sarvanand Shukla for direction against the colleges to hold educational activities and to give admissions to the students for full academic course and to withdraw all notices. The said three Writ Petitions came to be disposed of by common Judgment on 20th September, 2007 by 21 the Bench to which one of us was party(Swantanter Kumar, C.J.). That decision is reported in 2008(1) All MR 270[Bhagwant Kaur Sandhu & ors v/s. Laxmi Education Society & Ors.]. This Court kept all the contentions open and disposed of all the three Petitions on the following terms. “10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances aforestated, we would dispose of these petitions with the following directions: a) The Government would expeditiously take decision in accordance with law, upon the notice for closure submitted by the management of the colleges. b) The teachers who have approached this court are entitled to pursue their applications before the College Tribunal and the Tribunal is free to decide their applications in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. c) The parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal are free to put forward their points of view for the consideration of the Tribunal and as permissible in law. d) The students who have already been granted admission by the college by its own or under the orders of this court in the presence of the Education Officer shall be permitted to complete their academic course for two years i.e. 11th and 12th standards. The college will not in any way hamper the educational career or curtail the said period under any circumstances. e) Out of 23 applications of the students filed before us, since seven students are already studying in other colleges, their request for admission to the colleges is declined and it will not be proper to transfer them from one college to another at this juncture particularly when first term has practically concluded. However, as regards the remaining sixteen students, who have not taken admission anywhere, the college is directed to grant them admission forthwith and admit them to the current academic year of 11th standard. In the event the above students do not take admission by 22 5.P.M., on 21st September, 2007, they shall be deemed to have waived the benefit of this order. f) The above directions are obviously without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, which are available to them before the respective authorities/tribunal and they are also free to take all the pleas that have been taken by them in the present petitions. g) These writ petitions are disposed of with the above directions. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.” 7. As a consequence of the directions issued by this Court the proceedings instituted by the permanent employees before the School Tribunal proceeded further. The School Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the respective permanent employees on the following terms. “O R D E R” 1. The Appeal is allowed in the following terms: a) The Respondent No.1 and 2 to forward the name of appellant as surplus teacher due to reduction in workload