JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - Both these writ petitions arise out of one and the same order of the State Education Tribunal. Bhubaneswar, in Appeal Case No. 14 of 1983 and, therefore, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In the aforesaid appeal (Appeal No. 14 of 1983) filed at the instance of the erstwhile Headmaster of Sri Ma Sri Aurobindo Uchha Vidyapitha, the Tribunal directed the Managing Committee and the Secretary of the said Managing Committee to treat the Headmaster to be in service all along and to give him all the consequential benefits. The Managing Committee has approached this Court challenging the legality of the said order of the Tribunal in O.J.C. No. 710 of 1986. The Headmaster on the other hand, has approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 249 of 1985 for implementation of the direction of the Tribunal. Thus, the fate of the Headmaster?s petition very much depends upon the decision in the Managing Committee?s writ application. 2. According to the Managing Committee (Petitioner No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 710 of 1986) the Headmaster while was working as the Headmaster misbehaved with a girl student for which the Managing Committee was contemplating to initiate a disciplinary proceeding. At that point of time~ the Head~ master himself tendered resignation on 21-5-1983 which was duly accepted by the Managing Committee on 22-5-1983. The Headmaster wanted to -withdraw his earlier resignation on 25-5-1983 by which time the resignation had already been accepted~ Therefore, the Headmaster approached the Tribunal on 27-5-1983 preferring an appeal which was Appeal Case No. 10 of 1983. He again filed another appeal on 25-7-1983. The earlier appeal filed by the Headmaster on 27-5-1983 (Appeal Case No. 10 of 1983) was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29-7-1983, but the latter appeal (Appeal Case No., 14 of 1983) was entertained and on 18-5-1984, the Managing Committee was directed to produce the relevant documents as ordered by the Tribunal on 4-5-1984. The direction stipulated that the documents should be produced on 2-6-1984. On 2-6-1984, the counsel appearing for the Managing Committee was present in the Tribunal and filed the necessary documents. After the counsel left the place the Tribunal passed an order that the appeal be posted to 23-6.1984 for hearing at 11.00 a. m. and parties should be informed accordingly. The direction stipulated that the documents should be produced on 2-6-1984. On 2-6-1984, the counsel appearing for the Managing Committee was present in the Tribunal and filed the necessary documents. After the counsel left the place the Tribunal passed an order that the appeal be posted to 23-6.1984 for hearing at 11.00 a. m. and parties should be informed accordingly. Notwithstanding the said order, the Managing Committee was not informed nor even the counsel appearing for the Managing Committee was informed. On 23-6-1984 the Managing Committee was not represented and was accordingly set ex parte and the matter was posted for hearing to 3-7-1984. On 3-7-1984 the appeal was heard ex parte and judgment was reserved on 17-7-1984. On 10-7-1984, the counsel appearing for the Managing Committee came to know that the Managing Committee had been set ex parte and the appeal had been heard. He, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal praying that the Managing Committee be given a chance of hearing. This application was rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 26-9-1984. Ex parte judgment of the Tribunal was passed on 5-11-1984 which is being impugned in the present case, After the ex parte judgment against the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee filed an application purported to be one under Rules 13 and 26 of the Orissa Education (Tribunal) Rules, 1977, for setting aside the ex parte judgment which was numbered as M. J. C. No. 8 of 1984. This M.J. C. was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 17-12-1985. 3. Mr. D. K. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Managing Committee in O.J.C. No. 710 of 1986 raises two contentions in assailing the order of the Tribunal. He first contends that in view of the order of the-Tribunal dated 2-6-1984 fixing the hearing of the appeal to 23-6-1-984 and directing that the parties should be informed and since the Managing Committee admittedly was not informed, the Tribunal committed an error in setting the Managing Committee ex parte on 23-6-1984 and by hearing the appeal ex parte on 3-7-1984. Consequently, the final order which emanated on 5-11-1984 (Annexure-1) cannot be sustained. Consequently, the final order which emanated on 5-11-1984 (Annexure-1) cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel further contends that even if the appeal was heard ex parte and judgment was reserved on 3-7-1984, but the judgment had not been delivered, the Tribunal had not become functus officio when the Managing Committee filed application for getting a chance of hearing on 10-7-1984. The Tribunal Committed &n error in rejecting the said application by order dated 26-9-1984 by observing that ?the petition is premature and is accordingly rejected?, and on that score also, the ex parte judgment of the Tribunal dated 5-11-1984 must be set aside Mr. Rath, the learned Counsel appearing for the Headmaster-opposite party No. I, on the other hand contends that the official acts must be presumed to be done in accordance with law and since the Tribunal directed that the parties should be informed on 2-6-1984. it must be presumed that the parties were duly informed before the matter was taken up for bearing on 23-6-1984 as well as on 3-7-1984. In that view of the matter the contention of the Petitioner that the Managing Committee was not informed cannot be entertained. Mr. Rath further contends that in view of Rules 13 and 26 of the Orissa Education (Tribunal) Rules~ which only provide the procedure for setting aside an ex parte judgment and in the absence of any provision authorising the Tribunal to re-hear the matter once the same was heard ex parte and judgment was reserved, the application of the Managing Committee filed on 10-7-1984 was rightly rejected. Mr. Rath further contends that in view of the fact that the Tribunal rejected the miscellaneous case filed by the Managing Committee for restoration on a finding that there has been no illegality in hearing the matter ex parte on 3-7-1984, this Court should not interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The rival contention require careful examination. 4. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the Tribunal while disposing of an appeal exercises a quasi-judicial jurisdiction and is bound to follow the principles of natural justice. One of the essential requirements of such principle is that the parties must now the date of hearing. On 2-6-1984 the Tribunal fixed the appeal to 23-6-1984 and directed that the parties be informed. One of the essential requirements of such principle is that the parties must now the date of hearing. On 2-6-1984 the Tribunal fixed the appeal to 23-6-1984 and directed that the parties be informed. There is no material on record to come to a conclusion that the Managing Committee was informed in accordance with the direction of the Tribunal dated 2.6-1984. We have perused ourselves the records of the Tribunal. Neither there 15 any endorsement in the order-sheet on 2-6-1984 to the effect that the notice has been issued not is there any endorsement in the order-sheet subsequently indicating that the notices have been duly issued. A copy of the notice fixing the hearing .to 23-6-1984 addressed to the Managing Committee is therein record and on the back of the same there is no endorsement that the same has been served on the Managing Committee. Then again, while the Managing Committee has categorically asserted in the present writ application that no notice has been served on the Petitioner or the counsel informing that the appeal would be heard on 23-6-1984, there has been no denial of the same by the Headmaster-opposite party No. 1 nor the Tribunal who has been arrayed as opposite party No. 3 and for whom the learned Additional Standing Counsel appears, has made any return. In that view of the matter, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of the Tribunal dated 2-6-1984 fixing the hearing of the appeal to ?3-6-1984 and directing that the parties \De informed was not notified to the Managing Committee or its counsel and consequently, the order of the Tribunal dated 23-6-1984 making the Petitioner-Managing Committee ex parte in the proceeding and the hearing of the appeal ex parte on 3-7-1984 must be held to be illegal, inoperative and void, since the principles of natural justice have been fully violated. Consequently, the judgment of the Tribunal dated 5-11-1984 (Annexure-I) must beheld to be illegal and inoperative and cannot be sustained. We would accordingly quash the judgment of the Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 14 of 1983, annexed, as Annexure-1 to the writ application. 5. We also find sufficient force in the contention of Mr. Consequently, the judgment of the Tribunal dated 5-11-1984 (Annexure-I) must beheld to be illegal and inoperative and cannot be sustained. We would accordingly quash the judgment of the Tribunal in Appeal Case No. 14 of 1983, annexed, as Annexure-1 to the writ application. 5. We also find sufficient force in the contention of Mr. Mohapatra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Managing Committee on the second aspect, namely, that when the Petitioner?s counsel filed an application on 10-7-1984 requiring the Tribunal that the Petitioner may be given a chance of hearing, the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the same by order dated 6-9-1984. True it, is that the appeal was, heard on 3-7-1984 and thereafter the matter was posted for judgment, but before delivery of judgment when the Petitioner?s counsel filed an application to have the opportunity of hearing of the appeal, the Tribunal had not been functus officio. As contended by Mr. Rath for the Headmaster-opposite party No. I, there is no provision In the Orissa Education (Tribunal) Rules which authorises the Tribunal to hear an appeal again if the matter is posted for judgment. But in our opinion, even though there is no express provision, yet at the same time there is no express prohibition. The Tribunal continues to retain jurisdiction over the appeal until the judgment is delivered . The contention of the learned Counsel for the Headmaster-opposite party No. 1 is that since the Rules provide the procedure for setting aside an ex parte judgment, by implication it must be held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal again which has been heard ex parte, during the intervening period, namely hearing of the appeal and delivery of judgment. We do not find any force in the aforesaid contention. The procedure provided for in the Rules for setting aside an ex parte judgment when the Petitioner shows sufficient cause for non-appearance of the Petitioner on the date of hearing does not fetter the power of the Tribunal to hear an appeal at the instance of the party who had not been heard if an application for the same is filed before delivery of judgment, In other words, the Tribunal does not become functus officio after hearing of the appeal till the judgment is delivered and retains full ?jurisdiction and can pass appropriate order which i~ necessary in the interests of justice. In that view of the matter., when the Petitioner?s counsel filed an application on 10-7-1984 to give him a chance of hearing asserting therein that there was no notice on him informing the date of the appeal as 23-6-1984, the Tribunal should have considered? the same and, in our view, should have heard the matter particularly in the context when the order-sheet reveals that the date of hearing as ordered on 2-6-1984 was not served on the Petitioner fixing the hearing to 23-6-1984. We would consequently bold that the order of the Tribunal dated 26 9-1984 rejecting the Petitioner?s application filed on 10-7.1984 is illegal. 6. True it is that the Tribunal has dismissed the miscellaneous case filed by the Petitioner-Managing Committee for setting aside the ex parte judgment on a finding that the Petitioner has filed to show sufficient cause for non-appearance of the Petitioner. But in view of our earlier conclusion on examination of the records of the Tribunal as well as on account of non-controverting the assertions made by the Petitioner-Managing Committee that the Petitioner did not have any notice of heating of the appeal fixed to 23-6-1984. the said order of the Tribunal dated 17-12-1985 rejecting the M. J. C. 8 of 1984 cannot be sustained and accordingly we would quash the said order, annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application. 7. The Headmaster?s application, namely O.J.C. No. 249 of 1985 was for a direction to implement the direction of the Tribunal contained in the ex parte judgment dated 5-11-1984 in Appeal Case No. 14 of 1983. Since we have already quashed the said order by holding that the same is vitiated on account of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice the said order has no existence and in that view of the matter the question of issuing any direction to the opposite parties for implementing the same does not arise and, therefore. O.J.C. No. 249 of 1985 must be dismissed. 8. In the net result, therefore. Annexures 1 and 4 in O.J.C. No. 710 of 1986 are quashed and Appeal Case No. 14 of 1983 is remitted back to the Tribunal (opposite party No. 3) for re-hearing and re-disposal in accordance with law by giving due notice to the parties concerned as to the date of hearing. The appeal would revert back to the stage where it was on 2-6-1984. The appeal would revert back to the stage where it was on 2-6-1984. The; writ application in O.J.C. 710 of 1986 is accordingly allowed. O.J.C. No. 249 of 1985 filed by the Headmaster is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both these writ petitions. The parties, namely the Managing Committee as well as the Secretary of the Managing Committee and the Headmaster as well as the Circle Inspector through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the State Education Tribunal on April, 1987, to receive appropriate direction regarding hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The record of the Tribunal be sent back immediately. K. P. Mohapatra, J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed