Judgment : Heard finally. 2 By this common judgment, all the above Writ Petitions are being disposed of since they arise out of a common impugned judgment passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik. 3 The Petitioner/management has challenged the impugned order passed by the School Tribunal, Nasik Region, Nasik dated 16.10.1995 whereby they have been directed to reinstate all these Appellants on their original posts and further directed to give benefits attached to it. This Court has stayed the order while admitting the Writ Petition Nos.1023/2000 and 1027/2000 on 11 September 2001. The same has been in force till this date. 4 Apart from going to the merits of the matter, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out paragraph 12 in Writ Petition No.6996/1996 and submits that they have not been heard when the order was passed. “12 Petitioners further state and submit that the aforesaid Appeal was fixed for hearing along with other Appeals bearing Appeal No.22 of 1993 and Appeal No.23 of 1993, filed by other disgruntled teachers on 13.9.1995, at Thane. The hearing of the same could not take place, as request was made on behalf of Respondent No.4 for next date for arguments. Accordingly, the aforesaid Appeals were adjourned to 16.10.1995, for further hearing. Signatures of Petitioner No.2 were obtained on Roznama on 14.9.1995. In the next date of argument on 16.10.1995, the aforesaid Tribunal could not assemble as rest house was not available on 16.10.1995. Therefore, the next date was fixed on 22.11.1995. It was displayed on a notice board accordingly. Petitioners submit that on 22.11.1995, when Petitioner No.2 along with Lawyer, Shri Nisar Kharbe, attended the hearing of the aforesaid Appeal at Thane, for arguments they were told that on 16.10.1995, Respondent No.2 had decided the aforesaid Appeal and allowed the same. Petitioners state and reiterate that neither on 14.9.1995, nor on 16.10.1995, nor any time before, that was there any hearing of the aforesaid Appeal and/or any other Appeal took place. Petitioners state that in the aforesaid Appeal they have filed an application for making Deputy Director of Vocational as party-Respondent. However, the said application was not decided. Petitioners state and reiterate that neither on 14.9.1995, nor on 16.10.1995, nor any time before, that was there any hearing of the aforesaid Appeal and/or any other Appeal took place. Petitioners state that in the aforesaid Appeal they have filed an application for making Deputy Director of Vocational as party-Respondent. However, the said application was not decided. Immediately an application was filed on behalf of the Petitioners for certified copies of the aforesaid order dated 16.10.1995, certified copy of the Roznama in the aforesaid Appeal and certified copy of application filed by the Respondents for making Respondent No.1 as party-Respondent in the aforesaid Appeals. However, they were informed that there is no practise of giving any certified copy of the said Orders as prayed. However, petitioners were sent a ordinary copy of the order dated 16.10.1995, by simple post. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “O” is the copy of the said order dated 16.10.1995. Petitioner No.1 is filing separate affidavit in this writ petition about the proceedings in the aforesaid Appeal. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit “P” is the copy of the said affidavit of Petitioner No.1.” Similar grounds are raised in the other Petitions also. 5 The Petitioners filed affidavit in support of the Petition and made the same submission to say that the order was passed behind their back and it is an exparte order. The averments so made in the affidavit as well as the grounds so raised remained unchallenged. 6 Therefore, without further into the merits of the matter and in the interest of justice and as there is a clear breach of principles of natural justice and as no fair opportunity was given to the Petitioners and as the order was passed behind their back, without considering their case as well as giving opportunity and by just overlooking the basic Roznama which clearly shows that the Petitioners were present through their Advocate from time to time. In my view, an opportunity needs to be given to the Petitioners. 7 In a given case, the matter could have been heard and disposed of, but as no opportunity was given and as recorded above, it is desirable that the concerned Tribunal, after giving hearing to the Petitioners and the other side, pass an appropriate order afresh. The parties are at liberty to settle the matters also. 7 In a given case, the matter could have been heard and disposed of, but as no opportunity was given and as recorded above, it is desirable that the concerned Tribunal, after giving hearing to the Petitioners and the other side, pass an appropriate order afresh. The parties are at liberty to settle the matters also. 8 Resultantly, by keeping all points open, the common impugned order dated 16.10.1995 is quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded back. The learned Tribunal to pass an appropriate order after hearing both the parties, preferably within six months from today. The parties to appear before the Tribunal on 26 July 2012 so that the learned Tribunal will proceed with the matter by giving opportunity to both the parties expeditiously. All the above Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.