JUDGMENT B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. All these petitioners are employees working with Shivaji Education Society at Amravati in its School imparting education in MCV Courses. The other respondents in writ petitions are State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Vocational Education and Training, Director and Deputy Director of Vocational Education. This Court has passed various interim orders in the matters and, therefore, service or status of petitioners has remained protected since 2001 till date, i.e. almost for 14 years. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3580 of 2001 Shri Manohar Yawle reached age of superannuation and retired on 30/4/2014. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3149 of 2001 Shri Shrikant Deshmukh reaches age of superannuation on 31/10/2015. 2. During hearing, Shri Sambre, who appears for said educational Society (employer) has pointed out that roster has been finalised by Department in the year 2007 and as per his instructions, all petitioners before this Court now fall within the sanctioned strength. 3. Respective Counsel for petitioners, namely, Shri Mohokar, Shri Dangre and Shri Parsodkar after briefly inviting our attention to history, state that all petitioners were validly selected as Instructors and were possessing necessary qualification. There were two groups in Management and because of infighting, both groups effected recruitment and hence, against a single vacancy, two eligible persons became available. The Management, in this situation, terminated services of about 103 employees, who in turn approached School Tribunal and thereafter this Court in various writ petitions. This Court after acknowledging the fact that employees could not be blamed for the said state of affairs, expressed a need to resolve the situation. Accordingly, Management as also Department at the relevant time tried to find out whether persons recruited in excess could have been absorbed as Teachers, i.e. on higher post than post of Instructor. For that purpose, a seniority list of such persons was drawn and those who were more senior/ meritorious were then promoted as Teachers. Initially about 2-3 such promotions were approved by the Department. However, later on Department realised that there was no such promotional channel and hence, approval was rejected, with the result, Management was left with no option, but to ask such Teachers to join back on their posts as Instructors. In some cases, orders of termination were also issued. 4. These Teachers approached this Court. However, later on Department realised that there was no such promotional channel and hence, approval was rejected, with the result, Management was left with no option, but to ask such Teachers to join back on their posts as Instructors. In some cases, orders of termination were also issued. 4. These Teachers approached this Court. This Court initially protected their employment, but later on modified interim orders and permitted them to work as Teachers, but to draw salary as Instructors. Advocate Dangre has pointed out that petitioners in his matters were protected and, therefore, worked as Teachers and received salary also as Teachers. He also submits that because of interim directions issued by this Court on 4/8/2011, their future increments after said date have also been released. 5. We at this juncture only wish to note that because of indulgence shown by this Court, petitioners continue to work on the posts of Teachers. Most of them have received salary of lower post, i.e. that of Instructor while few of them got salary as Teachers. Shri Manohar Yawle, who retired on 30/4/2014 or then Shri Shrikant Deshmukh is due to retire on 31/10/2015 have received salary only as Instructors. 6. Respective Counsel for petitioners state that as petitioners were not at fault, their recruitment being in accordance with law, they could not have been reverted or terminated. It is argued that in changed situation, i.e. after about 14 years of said controversy, there is no need to vary the interim orders passed by this Court. As all petitioners now fall in sanctioned strength and are eligible to be appointed as Teachers, in exceptional circumstances, they should be allowed to continue as Teachers. They also state that petitioners should be given their salary as Teachers prospectively, i.e. from the judgment of this Court in the present matters and petitioners shall not claim any arrears, if they are given continuity in service. 7. Advocate Parsodkar appearing for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3698 of 2002 submits that the petitioner is working as Instructor, but his services are not approved and, therefore, his salary as Instructor also has not been released. 7. Advocate Parsodkar appearing for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3698 of 2002 submits that the petitioner is working as Instructor, but his services are not approved and, therefore, his salary as Instructor also has not been released. He invites our attention to order dated 13/8/2012 on Civil Application No. 1914 of 2012 in the said writ petition to show that this Court had asked employer to re-submit the bills by adding increments from the date of appointment, i.e. from 19/11/1992 and increments were directed to be released within three months. According to learned Counsel, petitioner Prashant Nimbalkar is made to suffer for no fault on his part and only on account of refusal by Department to approve other petitioners as Teachers. 8. Smt. Maldhure, learned Assistant Government Pleader is strongly opposing the petitions. She submits that when there was a single vacancy, two persons could not have been recruited against it. Infighting within Management cannot be used by petitioners to adversely affect the interest of general public and two salaries cannot be paid by State Government for the very same workload. It is contended that in the absence of provision for promotion to the post of Teacher from cadre of Instructor, effort made by Management to absorb surplus recruits as Teachers is totally illegal and void. She has invited our attention to proceedings of meeting dated 22/2/2010. 9. Advocate Abhay Sambre appearing for employer submits that though technically objections raised by the learned Assistant Government Pleader are correct, the parties were striving to work out a solution and he invites our attention to communication dated 2/12/2000 forwarded by Deputy Director, Vocational Education and Training to Director, Vocational Education and Training. He submits that all petitioners, who were recruited by either group, were fully qualified and persons, who were promoted to work as Teachers were/are also duly qualified. He further adds that as the Management accommodated excess Instructors as Teachers and approval to said action was not granted, salary of most of the petitioners was not released. It is submitted that only after interim orders of this Court, salary has been paid to most of the petitioners as Instructors while some of them have been paid as Teachers. The Department did not grant approval even to Instructors and hence, salary of Instructors also could not be released. It is submitted that only after interim orders of this Court, salary has been paid to most of the petitioners as Instructors while some of them have been paid as Teachers. The Department did not grant approval even to Instructors and hence, salary of Instructors also could not be released. He, therefore, adds that there was and is no question of State Government paying twice for the same workload. 10. After hearing respective Counsel for the parties, we find that in Writ Petition No. 3580 of 2001, this Court has granted ad interim order and directed State Government, Director and Deputy Director to issue provisional approval to petitioner Manohar Yawle in the post of Teacher. This direction has been issued on 5/6/2003 and on 28/11/2003 after noticing that in other petition, interim order of different nature was passed, i.e. order dated 16/8/2002 in Writ Petition No. 3149 of 2001, very same interim arrangement was evolved and made applicable even in Writ Petition No. 3580 of 2001. Thus, this Court has thereafter permitted petitioners to work on the posts of Teachers, but to receive salary of Instructors. This interim arrangement holds the field even today. 11. We have already noted above arguments of Advocate Dangre. He has pointed out that in Writ Petition No. 3917 of 2001, petitioner Vasanti Wankhade has challenged order of termination dated 31/10/2001 and it was stayed by this Court on 23/11/2001, with the result, she continued to work as Teacher only. On 4/8/2011, in the said matter and Writ Petition Nos. 3770 of 2001 and 3787 of 2001, this Court has after noting grievance of petitioners Vasanti Wankhade, Atul Wankhade and Jyoti Thakre that their increments were not being released since last about 12 years, directed respondents to notionally release the same till date and to fix their current salary accordingly and direction was issued to pay that salary with current increment within a period of two months from the date of said order. 12. In the communication dated 2/12/2000 sent by Deputy Director, Vocational Education and Training, Amravati to Director, Vocational Education and Training at Mumbai, the issue finds consideration. The Director had on 3/10/2000 sent a communication to Deputy Director pointing out that on 30/9/2000, letter was issued by the Directorate and by that letter, absence of provision to promote Instructor as a Teacher was pointed out. The Director had on 3/10/2000 sent a communication to Deputy Director pointing out that on 30/9/2000, letter was issued by the Directorate and by that letter, absence of provision to promote Instructor as a Teacher was pointed out. It was also disclosed that recruitment to the post of Teacher could have been undertaken. In second paragraph, there is reference to a Court's order and it is mentioned that concerned eight Instructors could be absorbed retrospectively as full time Teachers. It appears that in the light of Court's order, Deputy Director had proposed said course of action and sought approval to it. That approval was given on 3/10/2000. The letter dated 3/10/2000 and proposal submitted by Management on 10/11/2000 are referred in communication dated 2/12/2000 forwarded by Deputy Director to Director. 13. The said communication dated 2/12/2000 points out that in the academic year 1992-93, two parallel Managements effected recruitment resulting in two persons working on the same post. The writ petitions filed by such persons before this Court and then directions issued by this Court as also bond given by the Managing Committee of the educational Society to Court also find mention. As per said bond, persons recruited as per rules and satisfying requirement of educational qualification as also experience were to be absorbed if two such persons were found working on one post. A seniority list was to be prepared as per their educational qualification and a senior Instructor was to be promoted as Teacher as per his qualification. It is also stated that two-three such proposals were already approved and sanction was given by the Office to such Teachers. It then mentions about communication dated 27/9/1999 and a letter written earlier seeking guidance. It also points out that on 18/7/2000 educational Society pointed out that if Instructors appointed as Teachers were reverted, it would again give rise to Court matters and it, therefore, requested the Office of Deputy Director to grant approval retrospectively as Teachers to such persons. Accordingly, the situation was communicated to the Office of Director on 30/9/2000 and Management was asked to submit proposal for absorbing nine senior Instructors as full time Teachers. Management thereafter on 6/10/2000 passed a Resolution and on 23/10/2000 issued a letter for their retrospective absorption. Proposal was then submitted on 10/11/2000. It is pointed that nine Instructors mentioned in the said proposal could not have been promoted as Teachers. Management thereafter on 6/10/2000 passed a Resolution and on 23/10/2000 issued a letter for their retrospective absorption. Proposal was then submitted on 10/11/2000. It is pointed that nine Instructors mentioned in the said proposal could not have been promoted as Teachers. If these nine promotions were accepted and nine posts of Instructors were made vacant, one of the two incumbents working against same post could have been absorbed against that post. It is also pointed out that there was no Court case filed by Instructor, who was being promoted as Teacher. It is further pointed out that while effecting such promotion, roster point was not considered and proper procedure was not followed. This communication after pointing out all these difficulties, seek guidance from the Office of Director as a special case. 14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has invited our attention to subsequent proceedings of meeting held on 22/10/2001. This meeting was attended by Deputy Director, Director as also Secretary, Shivaji Education Society. Perusal of the proceedings show that in absence of any statutory provision, nine full time Instructors were promoted as full time Teachers and the resulting situation was then discussed. It was resolved that such Instructors should be paid salary of their substantive post after obtaining their consent. Vacancies in the cadre of full time Teacher should be advertised and filled in as per prescribed procedure. After receipt of permission from State Government to fill in those posts, Regional Office would consider question of grant of approval to incumbents. It was also resolved that out of nine surplus Instructors, those who were fulfilling eligibility norms about education, experience, etc. if their appointment was as per roster point, after obtaining approval of Deputy Director, their appointment should be made. Till these steps are taken, parallel appointments should not be sanctioned. 15. Thus, these letters clearly bring on record that two Managements independently recruited persons as Instructors and therefore, two eligible and qualified employees became available for working against same vacancy. Ultimately it was decided that the issue should be resolved and for that purpose, Management and Department made some efforts. Department initially granted approval to some promotions, i.e. promotion from the cadre of Instructor to the post of Teacher. Ultimately it was decided that the issue should be resolved and for that purpose, Management and Department made some efforts. Department initially granted approval to some promotions, i.e. promotion from the cadre of Instructor to the post of Teacher. However, after realising the fact that persons promoted as Teachers had not approached this Court and, therefore, were not appointed as Instructors because of in-fight between two groups, the approval was denied. It appears that to resolve situation, Management prepared seniority list of entire cadre of Instructor. Thus, Instructors working earlier as also Instructors recruited later on by both groups figured in that seniority list. Those who were qualified and senior were then promoted or absorbed as Teachers. Instead of promoting or absorbing a candidate recruited by any particular group, Management solved the problem by preparing a seniority list and then conferred benefit of post of Teacher on senior Instructors, i.e. those, who had earlier worked as Instructors. No fault could have been found with this approach. 16. The need to resolve the issue was felt by this Court as also by respondents and efforts were undertaken in that direction. Instead of promoting Instructors recruited afresh as Teachers, Management might have promoted senior Instructors as Teachers. The effect was same. More vacancies were created in the cadre of Instructors and, therefore, Instructors recruited in excess could have been absorbed against those vacancies. 17. The situation required to be addressed was not normal and hence, stand of the Department that there was no promotional channel could not have resolved the issue. In fact, we have noted that Department itself had in past granted approval to such promotions. The petitioners, who having been recruited by either group, cannot be blamed for this situation. They participated in the selection process and have been selected as Instructors in accordance with law. As such, their interest or rights could not have been jeopardized because of in-fight within the groups in the Management. 18. The interim orders passed by this Court on lines mentioned supra are operating till date. Though the fact that roster has been finalised in the year 2007 is not on affidavit, learned Counsel for educational Society has made a responsible statement upon instructions and, therefore, we have no hesitation to accept it. This also shows that when rival groups undertook recruitment, roster was not finalised. 19. Though the fact that roster has been finalised in the year 2007 is not on affidavit, learned Counsel for educational Society has made a responsible statement upon instructions and, therefore, we have no hesitation to accept it. This also shows that when rival groups undertook recruitment, roster was not finalised. 19. We, therefore, find that interest of justice can be met with by directing respondents to permit such of the petitioners, who are working as Teachers, to continue to work as Teachers. Such of them, who are working as Instructors, shall be permitted to work as Instructors. Fresh proposals for examining their eligibility for post of Teacher/Instructor, as the case may be, shall be submitted by the Management within a period of three months from today to the Office of Deputy Director. The said Office shall ignoring the absence of promotional channel from cadre of Instructor to the post of Teacher examine and evaluate such proposals and find out whether the incumbent was qualified to hold the post of a Teacher. If the incumbent is found qualified to hold the post as Teacher, his future salary from the date of this judgment shall then be released as a Teacher. Arrears for work put in by him/her as a Teacher prior to this date shall not be paid, but while determining salary, benefit of said service and consequential notional increments shall be given to the incumbent. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3770 of 2001, 3917 of 2001 and 3787 of 2001 are already working as Teachers and on 4/8/2011, this Court has also directed respondents to release their increments. That order dated 4/8/2011 is made absolute. The said petitioners, however, shall not be paid anything on account of increments for the period prior to 4/8/2011. However, for determining their current salary, services put in by them as Teachers prior to said date shall be taken into account and consequential notional increments shall be added to their salary for the said purpose. Similarly, proposal to approve services of petitioner Prashant Nimbalkar in Writ Petition No. 3698/2002 as Instructor shall be submitted afresh. If approval is given to his service as Instructor, his future salary shall again be fixed by giving him weightage for service put in till this date and his future salary shall then be re-fixed accordingly by notionally adding increments. Similarly, proposal to approve services of petitioner Prashant Nimbalkar in Writ Petition No. 3698/2002 as Instructor shall be submitted afresh. If approval is given to his service as Instructor, his future salary shall again be fixed by giving him weightage for service put in till this date and his future salary shall then be re-fixed accordingly by notionally adding increments. Insofar as petitioner Manohar Yawle in Writ Petition No. 3580 of 2001, who has retired on 30/4/2014, is concerned, we find that though he worked as Teacher, he has received salary as Instructor and has retired while receiving that salary only on 30/4/2014. Therefore, last pay drawn by him, which is to be taken into account for determining his pension and other terminal benefits is that of Instructor. In this situation, we direct that his wages as Teacher shall be determined as on 1/1/2013 by notionally releasing his increments and thereafter he shall be paid arrears of wages so fixed for the period from 1/1/2013 till 30/4/2014. His pension and other terminal benefits shall be then calculated suitably as Teacher. Case of Shri Shrikant Deshmukh due to retire on 31/10/2015 shall also be treated on same lines as that of Shri Yawle. Thus, if eligible, he shall also earn notional increments till 1.7.2014 and shall be fixed accordingly. He will thus receive arrears as Teacher from 1.7.2014 till 31.10.2015. His pension and retiral benefits shall be computed accordingly. Thus, all these writ petitions are partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.