ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The contention of the appellants is that several teachers had been appointed by one K.C. Guru fraudulently in purported implementation of a Circular dated 12-3-1996. When the fraud was detected, the said K.C. Guru was placed under suspension and orders of termination were issued to those teachers who had been fraudulently appointed. The termination orders were challenged by the teachers concerned before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal allowed the applications filed by the teachers and set aside the orders of termination but directed the State Government to appoint a High-Level Committee to go into the matter. The State Government, pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, appointed the High-Level Committee. The said Committee submitted the report, pursuant to which termination orders were served on several teachers who were petitioners before the Tribunal. 3. The writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, was filed by persons who were not parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal. They did so on the apprehension that their services were also likely to be terminated. On the basis of the expressed apprehension, the impugned order was passed, which reads as follows: "The services of the petitioners may not be terminated pursuant to the observation/direction contained in order dated 10-3-2000 of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in OA No. 2583 (C) of 1999 and other connected cases at Annexure 6. It is needless to mention here that as we have stayed the above direction of the Tribunal, the consequential letter of the Government dated 29-5-2002 at Annexure 7 shall not be given effect to. Miscellaneous case is disposed of." 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has stated that the respondent-writ petitioners had been duly appointed and there was no intention on the part of the appellants to take any action against them as they were not covered either by the proceedings before the Tribunal or by the report of the High-Level Committee; therefore, they have not been served with any termination order or any notice to show cause. According to the learned counsel, the respondent-writ petitioners were merely a front to protect the illegally/irregularly appointed primary school teachers from the State Government's action against them in terms of the Tribunal's direction. We need not go into the correctness of this allegation. 5. According to the learned counsel, the respondent-writ petitioners were merely a front to protect the illegally/irregularly appointed primary school teachers from the State Government's action against them in terms of the Tribunal's direction. We need not go into the correctness of this allegation. 5. Given the admitted position that the respondents are not sought to be proceeded against on the basis of the report of the High-Level Committee, we dispose of the appeal by observing that the services of the respondents will not be terminated on the basis of the report of the High-Level Committee. Save to the extent, as stated above, the orders under challenge are set aside. 6. No costs.