IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3039 OF 2008 S.Z. Gadhari & ors ).......Petititoner versus The Deputy Director of Education Mumbai Region & ors. )........ Respondant. Mr. K.S. Bapat i/b A.H. Fatangare for the Petitioner Mr. V.P. Malvankar AGP for the Respondent. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 18TH JULY 2008. P.C.: 1. The present petitioners though not a party before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application no. 519/07, take exception to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 10-3-2008, that the findings have been recorded against them on the ground of ineligibility to hold the post, and mandatory to Rules of 2005, without they be party to the petition and without hearing them. 2. It is not necessary for us to notice the facts giving rise to the present petition in any detail. Suffice it to know that the applicant Mohan had approached the Tribunal with a request that he was duly qualified to hold the post of Asstt. Deputy Education Officer. The applicant before the Tribunal was promoted to the post of Assistant Deputy Education Officer vide order dated 24-6-2003 and he was sought to be transferred by an order dated 31-8-2007 as an Assistant Teacher. The Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra through Education Officer issued endorsement on 17-8-2007 to the Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Mumbai to implement the order dated 22/3/2006 passsed by the court and out of 26 posts, 9 posts had been directly recruited posts. Vide order dated 31-8-2007 the impugned order in that application was passed by the Deputy Director of Education vide which he was transferred as Asstt. Teacher and questioned the correctnmess of this order before the Tribunal. Besides accepting the application of the applicant, the Tribunal not only observed, but recorded the finding effecting the rights of the present petitioners. In para 13 of the impugned order the Tribunal held as under : “ The point here is not about only seniority but also about essential eligibility as per Rule 6 of the Notification dated 27-5-2005. That Rule prescribes that appointments to the posts of ADEI shall be made by transfer on the basis of seniority from amongst the persons holding any post in the cadre and possessing a degree of Bachelor of Education with school subjects and having at least three years teaching experience, after acquiring a decree of Bachelor of Education. Thus, if the four persons at serial nos. 47 to 50 of the seniorotu list had been retained and do not have threeyears experience after B.Ed. While the applicant has requisite experience his posting as Assistant Teacher from the post of ADEI which he was holding in the higher scale would not be valid. It would also be against the instructions issued by Government on 17-8-2007 quoted supra.” 2. Bare reading of the above paragraph shows that the Tribunal has specifically made observations which are prejudicial to the present petitioners and have also observed apparently accepting the contention of the applicant that the present four persons referred to in these paragtraph do not possess three years experience after B.Ed. for qualifying for the post. This finding, in our opinion, is completely violative of the doctrine of Audi alteram partem and hurts the very basic rule of law. 3. As the petitioners were not party to those matter and hence they have not taken any steps to seek review of the order, and have come up before this court in the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Respondent no.2, the applicant before the Tribunal has duly been served but despite service he is not appearing before the court. It is stated by the petitioner that being fully aware of the pendency of the petition, the petitioner did not intend to appear, on the contrary he is pursuing vigoropusly the Contempt Petition before the Adminsitrative Tribunal. As the finding recorded against these petitioner' s is one of the basic foundation, we grant relief to the petitioners and essentially the judgment must be set aside and consequently we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal. The matter is remanded back to Tribunal for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after impleading the present petitioner as party respondent in that application, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.