JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. 1. Leave to add the State of Gujarat through the concerned Secretary, Education Department, as party respondent No. 3, is granted. The necessary amendment be carried out, forthwith. 2. Issue Rule to the newly added respondent No. 3. Ms. Snusha Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 3. Though notice of Rule has been served upon respondent No. 1, he has not chosen to appear before this Court. 3. The challenge in this petition under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order dated 02.06.2011, passed by the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services, in Application No. 82/1991, whereby the Tribunal has "confirmed" the earlier order of the Tribunal dated Nil. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1, who was working as Deputy Registrar (Academic Section) in the College run by the petitioner had challenged the communication dated 15.02.1991 issued by the petitioner whereby he was informed that he would be relieved upon superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years. Respondent No. 1, claiming the benefits of the Government Resolutions dated 03.07.1987 and 26.09.1989 claimed that he was a member of the teaching staff and would attain the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years. The petitioner maintained that the post of Deputy Registrar (Academic Section) was a non-teaching post. Respondent No. 1, therefore, approached the Tribunal by filing application No. 82/1991. The Tribunal by its earlier order dated Nil allowed the application of respondent No. 1. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 5933/1991. This Court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) vide the judgment dated 06.08.2010, quashed and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated Nil and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication and decision in view of the reasons narrated in the said order. Upon remand, the Tribunal has passed the order dated 02.06.2011 that is impugned in the present petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate for Mr. Upon remand, the Tribunal has passed the order dated 02.06.2011 that is impugned in the present petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate for Mr. Mukund M. Desai, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that, while remanding the matter to the Tribunal, this Court had quashed and set aside the earlier order dated Nil passed by the Tribunal and had directed it to consider and decide the matter afresh. Instead of doing so, the Tribunal has merely "confirmed" its earlier order which no longer exists. There is no fresh decision or adjudication by the Tribunal as directed by this Court, therefore, the matter requires consideration. 6. Ms. Snusha Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 3-State of Gujarat submits that, the State is a formal party and considering the fact that the Tribunal has not considered the matter in light of the directions issued by this Court vide the judgment dated 06.08.2010, passed in Special Civil Application No. 5075/1991 and cognate matter, this Court may pass an appropriate orders. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the Tribunal has fallen into error while passing the said order. The Tribunal does not appear to have taken into consideration the order of this Court dated 06.08.2010, passed in Special Civil Application No. 5075/1991 and cognate matters, wherein the earlier order of the Tribunal dated Nil, has been quashed and set aside. This is clearly stated in paragraph-5 of the order of this Court. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and decision, in view of the reasons narrated in the said order. In the impugned order, instead of considering the matter afresh and taking a fresh decision, the Tribunal has merely stated as below: "5. ***** I hereby fully agree with the order of my predecessor in Application No. 40/91 dated 29.07.1991 and the same is applicable in the present case also and I do not feel it proper to interfere with the said order of my predecessor. Considering the facts on record, I hereby confirm and apply the order of my predecessor passed in Application No. 40/91 dated 29.07.1991 in the present case also and I do not want to repeat here all the facts of the case. Considering the facts on record, I hereby confirm and apply the order of my predecessor passed in Application No. 40/91 dated 29.07.1991 in the present case also and I do not want to repeat here all the facts of the case. In view of above, the matter stands disposed of as allowed.*****" 8. The Court is constrained to observe that not only has the Tribunal failed to read, understand and follow the order of this Court in its proper perspective, it has proceeded to "confirm" its earlier order that has ceased to exist after it has been quashed and set aside by this Court. There was, therefore, no occasion to "confirm" the said order. Even otherwise, the Tribunal was not reviewing its earlier order nor was it sitting as an Appellate Court. Apart from being cursory and cryptic, the impugned order of the Tribunal displays non-application of mind, therefore, it cannot be permitted to stand. Not only that the correct number of the application filed by respondent No. 1 which was 82/1991 has not been mentioned by the Tribunal in paragraph-5, but it has mentioned application No. 40/1991, which has been passed in the case of another employee of the petitioner. 9. In view of the above, this Court considers it appropriate to pass the following order: The impugned order of the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal, Ahmedabad, dated 02.06.2011, passed in Application No. 82/1991, is hereby quashed and set aside. This Court is informed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the Gujarat Affiliated Colleges Services Tribunal has now been dissolved and a new Tribunal called the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal, constituted under the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal Act, is now functioning, which would be competent to adjudicate the matter. Hence, the matter is remanded to the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal for fresh hearing and adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving the parties an adequate opportunity of hearing. Considering that the matter is an old one, the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal is requested to expedite the hearing and decision of the matter and complete it within a period of six months, if possible. The parties are directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Gujarat Educational Institutions Services Tribunal. The petition is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute, accordingly.