JUDGMENT Z.A. Haq, J. 1. Heard Shri Mishra, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and Shri Rao, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the School Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2, setting aside the order terminating the services of the respondent No. 2 and directing his reinstatement with continuity of services. 2. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as Laboratory Attendant on 2nd April, 1988 for the academic session 1988-1989. It is undisputed that at that time the school was administered by the petitioner No. 1-management without receiving any grants from the State Exchequer. It is undisputed that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 was made without following any procedure, as laid down under section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "Mah. Act No. III of 1978"). It is the case of the respondent No. 2 that he was continued in the service from the date of his appointment i.e. 2nd April, 1988 till his services were illegally terminated on the opening day of 1992-1993 session, on which date he was not permitted to perform his duties. The case of the petitioner No. 1-management before the School Tribunal was that post in which the respondent No. 2 was appointed was reserved for nomadic tribe candidate. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner No. 1-management that the respondent No. 2 was appointed in the academic Sessions 1988-1989, 1989-1990, 1990-1991, 1991-1992, for the concerned sessions and the appointment was for specified period. It is submitted by the petitioner No. 1-management before the Tribunal that the respondent No. 2 had submitted resignation from the post on 30th June, 1992 and after his resignation, Shri D.B. Chaudhary was appointed. He also resigned and then the appointment was given to Shri G.V. Dighore. Shri Dighore was appointed as Laboratory Attendant from 1st July, 1994. The appointment of Shri Dighore is made as per procedure laid down under section 5 of the Mah. Act No. III of 1978 i.e. after issuing advertisement and conducting interviews. Shri Dighore is nomadic tribe candidate. The Education Officer has granted the approval to the appointment of Shri Dighore and he is still working in the school. 3. The appointment of Shri Dighore is made as per procedure laid down under section 5 of the Mah. Act No. III of 1978 i.e. after issuing advertisement and conducting interviews. Shri Dighore is nomadic tribe candidate. The Education Officer has granted the approval to the appointment of Shri Dighore and he is still working in the school. 3. The Tribunal found that the petitioner No. 1-management had illegally restrained the respondent No. 2 from performing his duties from the opening day of academic session 1992-1993. The Tribunal had also found that the petitioner No. 1-management has failed to prove that the respondent No. 2 had submitted resignation on 30th June, 1992. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 and granted relief as stated above. 4. Mr. Mishra, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 was in the post reserved for nomadic tribe candidate and the respondent No. 2 does not belong to nomadic tribe and therefore, he had no right to continue in the post. According to the petitioners, the appointment of respondent No. 2 was made on temporary basis for specified period, that is for the relevant academic session and therefore, it was made without following prescribed procedure for making regular appointment. The learned advocate has further submitted that the appointment of respondent No. 2 was granted approval by the Education Officer for only one session i.e. academic session 1991-1992. 5. Shri Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the claim of the petitioners that the post was reserved for nomadic tribe is not correct and that no material is placed on the record to substantiate this fact. Shri Kulkarni, the learned Advocate has alternatively submitted that the eligible candidate from nomadic tribe was not found at the time of interviews and therefore, the petitioner was appointed. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 belongs to other backward class and therefore, he was entitled for the continuation in service. Shri Kulkarni relied on the provisions of Rule 9(9)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1981") to substantiate his submission. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 belongs to other backward class and therefore, he was entitled for the continuation in service. Shri Kulkarni relied on the provisions of Rule 9(9)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1981") to substantiate his submission. The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2 has further submitted that the case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that the respondent No. 2 has submitted his resignation, however, the petitioners have failed to substantiate their contentions and consequently the findings of the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. According to the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 2, the stand taken by the petitioners is self-contradictory as at one stage the petitioners have submitted that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 was till the end of the academic session 1991-1992 and on the other hand the submission of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 2 has submitted resignation on 30th June, 1992. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that considering the conduct of the petitioners, the findings of the Tribunal are required to be up-held and the petition filed by the petitioners has to be dismissed. 6. Shri Nitin Rao, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the post of Laboratory Attendant in the school is reserved for nomadic tribe candidate. He has further submitted that the respondent No. 2 cannot take any benefit of Rule 9(9)(a) of the Rules of 1981 as the post was neither advertised nor interviews were conducted and the procedure required under Rule 9(7) and Rule 9(8) of the Rules of 1981 was not followed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has further submitted that the appointment of Shri G.V. Dighore is made by the petitioner No. 1-management according to the procedure and his appointment is granted approval and he is working in the post at present. 7. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, I find that the respondent No. 2 has neither pleaded that his appointment was made as per the provisions of section 5 of Mah. Act III of 1978 nor has placed any material on the record to show that at the time of his appointment, advertisement was issued and interviews were conducted. Act III of 1978 nor has placed any material on the record to show that at the time of his appointment, advertisement was issued and interviews were conducted. In view of this, submission made on behalf of respondent No. 2 relying on the provisions of Rule 9(9)(a) of Rules of 1981 cannot be accepted. It is undisputed that the post is reserved for nomadic tribe candidate and that the respondent No. 2 does not belong to nomadic tribe. Pursuant to the order passed by the School Tribunal, the respondent No. 2 was reinstated on 23rd May, 2002. However, the services of the respondent No. 2 were again terminated as the Education Officer had refused to grant approval to the appointment of the respondent No. 2. Civil Application No. 5729/2004 was filed in which it was submitted that the services of the respondent No. 2 were again terminated, as the Education Officer had refused to grant approval to the continuation of the respondent No. 2. This Court considered the submissions of the respective parties and granted stay to the order passed by the School Tribunal. The consideration while passing this order is that the post of Laboratory Attendant is reserved for nomadic tribe candidate. In view of this order passed on 30th August, 2004, the respondent No. 2 who was reinstated, is again removed from the services. This order passed by this Court has become final and has taken effect. It is settled law that interim orders passed in the proceedings, which adjudicate the rights of the parties, operate as res judicata at the subsequent stages in the same proceedings. Therefore, I am not inclined to consider the submission on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the post is not reserved for nomadic tribe candidate. 8. However, I find that the stand taken by the petitioners for removal of the respondent No. 2 from service is not proper. On the one hand, it is the case of the petitioners that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 was for specified period till the end of the academic session and on the other hand, the petitioners have stated before the Tribunal that the respondent No. 2 had submitted his resignation on 30th June, 1992. 9. In view of the facts, directions to reinstate the respondent No. 2 cannot be issued. 9. In view of the facts, directions to reinstate the respondent No. 2 cannot be issued. At the same time, the conduct of the petitioners is also not proper. They continued the respondent No. 2 in the service for about four academic sessions. Considering the facts of the present case, in my view, the interests of justice would be sub-served by directing the petitioner No. 1-management to pay compensation to the respondent No. 2 in terms of section 11(2)(e) of the Mah. Act III of 1978. The respondent No. 2 had been in the employment of the petitioner No. 1-management for about four academic sessions. Therefore, the petitioner No. 1-management to pay compensation equivalent to six months' salary which the respondent No. 2 would have received had he been reinstated and had been working today i.e. six months' salary at today's rate. The amount of compensation should be paid by the petitioner No. 1-management to the respondent No. 2 till 30th November, 2014. If the amount of compensation is not paid within the stipulated time, the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from today till the amount is paid to the respondent No. 2. The petition is disposed of accordingly in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.