JUDGMENT (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Both these petitions are heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The basic cause of action and the background are common and so also the basic facts, and therefore, this common judgment. 2. Both the petitioners, based upon an advertisement issued by respondent no.3, applied and appeared for a written examination. After the interview, the Selection Committee selected both the petitioners. Both of them joined services upon selection. 3. By impugned order dated 4.9.2012 respondents cancelled the appointments of the petitioners on the basis of the judgment passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) on 19.7.2012 in Original Application No. 90 of 2012 and MCA No. 42/12 (Review application) moved by original respondents 4 and 5. Admittedly both these petitioners were not parties to the proceedings initiated by Sonutai (applicant in original application). The operative part of the order in Original Application No. 90 of 2012 reads as under: “6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is crystal clear that in the first place, no candidate belonging to O.B.C. (female) or S.C. (female) could have been selected against the posts reserved for Open (female) category and thus selection of R/4 and 5 is totally illegal. In the second place, there is absolutely no justification for not selecting the present applicant so also Maske Swati Rangnath against the two available posts of Open (female) category. The respondents have committed illegality in not selecting the present applicant and by selecting and appointing the R/4, a candidate from O.B.C. Category and the R/5 a candidate from S.C. Category. Thus, the selection so also consequential appointment of R/4 and 5 will have to be quashed and struck down. Allowing the O.A., we quash and set aside the selection and consequential appointment of R/4 and 5 to the post of “Ropmala Madatnis” from Open (female) category. We direct the R/3 to select the applicant from Open (female) category to the post of “Ropmala Madatnis” and based on this selection to proceed further in the matter of consideration of the applicant's claim for appointment to the post of “Ropmala Madatnis”. 7. We direct the R/3 to select the applicant from Open (female) category to the post of “Ropmala Madatnis” and based on this selection to proceed further in the matter of consideration of the applicant's claim for appointment to the post of “Ropmala Madatnis”. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for R/4 and 5 seeks a stay of this judgment by contending that the R/4 and 5 are holding the post consequent to their appointment and that the R/4 and 5 propose to approach the High Court. The ld. Counsel for the applicant opposes the said prayer. In our considered view, as the present judgment goes to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court, the prayer for grant of stay is rejected. The O.A. thus allowed and disposed of, however with no order as to costs.” 4. The original respondents 4 and 5 then preferred M.C.A. (Review) No. 42/12. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal disposed of the said review application. The operative part of the order thereof is as under : “In that view of the matter, we clarify that if the present applicants (original respondent nos. 4 & 5)are the toppers in the merit list of OBC (female) and SC (female) categories respectively, our order should not be understood as directing quashing of their appointment and the said respondents will have a right to be accommodated in the respective categories of reservation meant for OBC (female) and SC (female). We further clarify that we have quashed the appointments of original respondent Nos. 4 and 5 made against the posts reserved for Open (female) category. With the above clarification, the application stands disposed of.” After referring to those orders, respondent no. 3 terminated the services of the petitioners without considering the fact that the impugned orders were passed behind their back, which is against the principle of natural justice. .5. At this stage, we are not concerned with the merits of the matter. The decision so given by the MAT revolves upon the material available at that time. The order terminating services of petitioners was passed without hearing the petitioners. It is well settled that no order should be passed against the party without giving opportunity. The petitioners are definitely one of those against whom the MAT has passed order without giving them any kind of opportunity as they were not made party. The order terminating services of petitioners was passed without hearing the petitioners. It is well settled that no order should be passed against the party without giving opportunity. The petitioners are definitely one of those against whom the MAT has passed order without giving them any kind of opportunity as they were not made party. The concept of “necessary party”, “proper party” and “formal party” cannot be overlooked by any court/tribunal while passing the final order. The law in this regard is well settled. As recorded above, this is one of the case where because of non-joinder of necessary party and the consequential order, this Court is required to interfere with as the impugned order, definitely takes away the rights of the parties. 6. Therefore, by keeping all the points open, we are inclined to remand the matter for giving the hearing to all the parties including the petitioners. Resultantly, order dated 19.7.2012 passed in OA No. 90/12 and the order 4.9.2012 passed in MCA (Review) No. 42/12 by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal are quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since this Court has set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to MAT, the petitioners should be permitted to join the post. Considering the reasons given by the MAT and in view of the fact that the matter is remanded and pursuant to the orders of MAT the applicants have already joined the services, the order of status quo will serve the purpose. 8. In W.P. No. 4546/12 this Court on 25.10.2012 after issuing notices on 18.9.2012 directed the respondents to maintain status quo and that has been in force till this date. As both the matters are identical, to avoid further complications, the position as stands today is required to be maintained. Hence, the order granting status quo dated 25.10.2012 shall continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. Parties are directed to appear before MAT on 08.7.2013. MAT shall dispose of OA No.90/12 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. Liberty is granted to join all necessary parties. With the above observations and directions both the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.