Judgment : Nagarathna, J. 1. These appeals assail the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.30518/2012, 30519/2012 and 30520/2012 dated 16/07/2013. 2. The sixth respondent - Teachers, in all these appeals had preferred their respective appeals before the Educational Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter, referred to as the "Tribunal"], at Chitradurga, being aggrieved by their termination from service. The Tribunal by a common judgment allowed their appeals and had directed reinstatement of the Teachers in their respective posts w.e.f. June 2009. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant -Educational Institution herein, had preferred the aforesaid writ petitions. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions. It is against the said orders, these appeals have been preferred. 3. Since these appeals arise out of the separate orders of the learned Single Judge affirming the common judgment of the Tribunal at Chitradurga, dated 02/07/2012, they have been heard together. 4. It is the case of the sixth respondent in W.A.No.5489/2013 that he was appointed as a Hindi Teacher in the year 1984. The sixth respondent in W.A.No.5490/2013 was appointed as a Kannada Teacher in June 2001 and the sixth respondent in W.A.No.5491/2013 was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher, Grade-1, in August 2003, in Rural High School at Hampanur village, run by the appellant - Institution. 5. It is their case that theywere in continuous service of the school. That the school was initially unaided and when Government aid was to be sanctioned, the appellant Institution did not permit these Teachers to work in the school i.e., in the month of June 2009. According to them, the appellant herein was interested in appointing the seventh respondent in each of these appeals in their place as Teachers. The sixth respondent Teachers in each of the appeals made their representations to the Block Education Officer, Chitradurga and the Deputy Director of Public Instruction, Chitradurga, to the Secretary, Education Board, complaining about the illegal acts of the appellant Institution in removing them from the services. Initially, they had filed writ petitions before this Court but they were directed to approach the Tribunal under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The sixth respondent in each of the appeals then filed their respective appeals before the Tribunal. 6. Initially, they had filed writ petitions before this Court but they were directed to approach the Tribunal under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The sixth respondent in each of the appeals then filed their respective appeals before the Tribunal. 6. The sixth respondent in W.A.No.5489/2013 and 5490/2013 had stated that while they were working as Teachers in the appellant -Institution they had evaluated SSLC answer scripts and that they had continuous service but without conducting any enquiry, they were terminated from service. Therefore, they had sought reinstatement at the hands of the Tribunal. The appellant -Institution had filed its objections before the Tribunal contending that these Teachers were never appointed in the Rural High School and that they were utter strangers to the Institution. If at all they had been appointed to do any evaluation work, then it was by misrepresentation made by them to the SSLC Board. That sixth respondent in W.A.No.5491/2013 was an employee of the Postal Department and not a Teacher in the appellant -school. Therefore, the appellant sought dismissal of the appeals by the Tribunal. 7. The Tribunal clubbed the appeals and common evidence was recorded both oral as well as documentary. On behalf of the Teachers, three witnesses were examined and fourteen documents were produced. While on behalf of the Institution, one witness was examined and six documents were produced. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and on the basis of the said evidence, the Tribunal allowed their appeals by setting aside their termination or removal from the school and directed their reinstatement into service. Being aggrieved by the said order and direction, the appellant - institution had filed writ petitions and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions. It is against the said orders of dismissal that these appeals have been filed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who has also filed his written submissions. He firstly contended that the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the termination of the sixth respondent -Teachers in each of the appeals and directing their reinstatement and that the learned Single Judge was not right in affirming the said order. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who has also filed his written submissions. He firstly contended that the Tribunal was not right in setting aside the termination of the sixth respondent -Teachers in each of the appeals and directing their reinstatement and that the learned Single Judge was not right in affirming the said order. Sixth respondent - Teachers had not produced any material to show that they were employed by the appellant -Institution, but based on an admission made by the Secretary of the Institution before the learned Magistrate in a criminal case relief has been granted. That the sixth respondent -Teachers were appointed as temporary Teachers and were paid an honorarium. The termination has been set aside even though no independent evidence has been produced by the sixth respondent Teachers in each of the appeals in order to prove that they were working as Teachers in the appellant - Institution. Alternatively, it was contended that the sixth respondent Teachers in each of the appeals were on a temporary appointment and they cannot seek protection from termination of their services as held in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others [ 2006 (4) SCC 1 ]. That when the very validity of their appointments was in issue, the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge ought to have gone into that question or ought to have decided that issue having regard to the evidence on record in its proper perspective before directing reinstatement, is the submission. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the orders of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Tribunal have to be set aside and the cases filed by the sixth respondent in each of these appeals, have to be dismissed. 9. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal while considering the evidence produced by each of the sixth respondents in these appeals has noted that they had not produced their appointment letters but certain documents were produced on the basis of which, it was possible to conclude that sixth respondents in W.A.Nos.5489/2013 and 5490/2013 were working at Rural High School and that they were even deputed to evaluation work of SSLC answer scripts for the examination held in the year April, 2008 and 2009. Exs. P-1, P-2, P-9 and P-10 were produced as evidence of this fact. Exs. P-1, P-2, P-9 and P-10 were produced as evidence of this fact. These two Teachers had also attended meetings held in the office of the D.D.P.I., Chitradurga, representing the appellant's school, which fact was supported by Exs.P-3, P-4, P-13 and P-14. That the sixth respondent in W.A.5489/2013 had produced Ex.P.5, which is a certificate issued by the Head Master of the school, to the effect that he was working as a Hindi Teacher from 1st August, 1997 to 10th April, 2000. Exs.P-6 to P-8 were produced by sixth respondent in W.A.No.5491/2013 in support of his case that he was working as a Physical Education Instructor. The Tribunal has also noted the admissions made by R.W.1 in his deposition to the effect that these Teachers were working in the appellant -school. R.W.1 being the Secretary of the appellant - school had volunteered to state in his cross examination that appointment orders were not issued to these Teachers. From this, the Tribunal concluded that even in the absence of orders of appointment but on the basis of the other documents, the sixth respondent -Teachers were indeed working in the appellant - Institution. In this regard, while considering the documents pertaining to the sixth respondent in W.A.Nos.5489/2013 and 5490/2013, the Tribunal has noted that appellant's school code was 11267 and the names of the aggrieved respondents were mentioned in the list of examiners for evaluation of SSLC answer scripts, even in the years 2008 and 2009. The number of answer scripts evaluated by these Teachers during this period and the attendance certificate issued by the Subject Inspector, Chitradurga, have been considered by the Tribunal to give a finding that the sixth respondent in W.A.Nos.5489/2013 and 5490/2013 were working as Hindi and Kannada Teachers respectively, in the appellant -Institution. Infact, R.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that these respondents were deputed for the purpose of evaluation of the SSLC answer scripts. At the same time, R.W.1 being the Secretary of the appellant Institution, giving evasive answers to the questions during the cross-examination, has also been noted by the Tribunal. 10. Infact, R.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that these respondents were deputed for the purpose of evaluation of the SSLC answer scripts. At the same time, R.W.1 being the Secretary of the appellant Institution, giving evasive answers to the questions during the cross-examination, has also been noted by the Tribunal. 10. As far as the sixth respondent in W.A.No.5491/2013 is concerned, it is noted that though no order of appointment as Physical Education Teacher, Grade - I, has been produced, R.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that on 11/11/2008 he had lodged a complaint against these Teachers in CC.No.368/2009 at Bharamasagara Police Station, wherein he has written that they were working as Teachers in his school, which fact has also been admitted before the learned Magistrate that these three Teachers were working as Teachers in the appellant -school in proceedings before the Magistrate in C.C.No.368/2009. 11. Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of the deposition in CC.No.368/2009 before the Magistrate wherein, R.W.1 has admitted that these three Teachers were removed as the roster scheme had to be implemented. Ex.P.8 is the deposition of Manjunatha Head Master of the appellant -Institution wherein he has admitted that these three persons were working as Teachers in the appellant -school. Considering the evidence produced by the school, the Tribunal has noted that the names of the sixth respondent Teachers were shown as Directors in Ex.R.1, which is the certified copy of the list of Managing Committee Members of 'Sneha Priya Vidya Samsthe', issued by the Registrar of Societies, Chitradurga District. But as far as the appellant -school is concerned, the evidence is to the effect that they were working as Teachers. 12. As far as the sixth respondent in W.A.No.5491/2013 is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that he was working at Kattigenahalli Branch Office between 9.45 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. and was involved in delivery of letters and was working as a Postman and that in the afternoon hours, he was working as a Physical Education Teacher in the appellant Institution. The Tribunal has concluded that this Teacher worked as a Postman on a temporary and also on part time basis. 13. The Tribunal has concluded that this Teacher worked as a Postman on a temporary and also on part time basis. 13. Exs.R-2 to R-4 produced by the Institution to prove the fact that seventh respondent in each of these appeals were appointed by the appellant -Institution and that sixth respondent in each of these appeals were not appointed by the appellant - Institution are not rightly believed by the Tribunal and for which, cogent reasons have been assigned. 14. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal rightly concluded that sixth respondent in each of these appeals were working as Teachers in the appellant - Institution. The said finding of the Tribunal is based on cogent reasoning and proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The learned Single Judge while considering the order of the Tribunal has held that the Tribunal is the fact finding authority, which has arrived at certain conclusions based on the material on record and that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, there could be no reappreciation of the evidence and has accordingly, dismissed the writ petitions. The said reasoning of the learned Single Judge in our view is also just and proper. 15. Moreover, the ratio of the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi (supra) does not apply in the facts of the present cases insofar as the respondent-teachers were not claiming regularisation in service, but the point in issue was legality of termination of their services. It is not seriously argued as to how the termination was legal on account of the fact that the appellant denied the very fact of the teachers having been employed by it. 16. We have perused and discussed the order of the Tribunal as well as that of the learned Single Judge and we find that the said orders are correct and would not call for any interference. Thus, there is no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed.