ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 18.12.2009 passed in Misc. Appeal (EAT) No.41/2003 by the Education Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga. The order impugned is at Annexure-S to the petition. 2. The respondent No.1 was before the EAT in the appeal filed under Section 94(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, alleging oral termination by the petitioner/management w.e.f. 01.06.2003. The EAT having considered the matter in detail has answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative and in that light has allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner herein who was respondent No.1 before the EAT, to reinstate the appellant with 50% backwages from the date of termination upto the date of reinstatement including all consequential benefits and allowances. The petitioner/management claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court in this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the EAT would contend that though the petitioner had been appointed as an English Teacher with effect from 02.12.1994, the same was a temporary appointment and his services had been dispensed as per the decision taken on 12.06.1997. In that light, it is contended that respondent No.1 not having worked subsequent to 12.06.1997 has falsely claimed that there was oral termination on 01.06.2003. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard would refer to the proceedings before the Government relating to the consideration of the petitioner/management for admission to grant-in-aid and in that regard would contend that the process for admission to grant-in-aid was in respect of respondent No.5 herein and it is only in that circumstances, when consideration was made by the official respondents, the respondent No.1 herein has falsely claimed termination in the year 2003 and approached the EAT. It is his case that, EAT without appreciating these aspects of the matter had arrived at its conclusion and therefore the order is not sustainable. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would however seek to repeal such contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Apart from referring to the other material on record, the learned counsel has also taken me through the consideration, as made by the EAT in the order impugned dated 18.12.2009. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would however seek to repeal such contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Apart from referring to the other material on record, the learned counsel has also taken me through the consideration, as made by the EAT in the order impugned dated 18.12.2009. It is pointed out that the EAT after referring to the nature of the contention that was put forth and having taken into consideration the official memorandum dated 26.11.1994 has also taken into consideration the initiation of the proceedings for grant-in-aid through the letter dated 05.01.1995, wherein the name of respondent No.1 herein was indicated. EAT also has taken into consideration the report dated 12.07.2005, wherein the name of respondent No.1 was shown at Sl.No.6 and as such taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter has arrived at the conclusion that respondent No.1 had continued to work in the petitioner/management and the termination as claimed was without complying due process of law. In that view it is his case that EAT had not committed any error so also call for interference in this petition. 6. In the light of the rival contentions, I have perused the petition papers including the order impugned. Even if the contention as put forth by the petitioner herein and the reliance as placed at Annexure-C dated 12.06.1997 is taken into consideration, the fact which becomes evident is that the respondent No.1 was infact appointed by the petitioner as Assistant English Teacher with effect from 02.12.1994. Hence, if the termination as claimed was made through Annexure-C on 12.06.1997 even as on that date, the respondent No.1 had already put in about three years of service. Therefore, even if termination at that stage was to be made, the same was required to be made in accordance with law. Though this is an aspect which is to be borne in mind, what cannot be ignored is that the consideration before the EAT was on the basis that the termination was w.e.f., 01.06.2003. 7. Therefore, the question as to whether the respondent No.1 had worked in the petitioner/management subsequent to 12.06.1997 is also an aspect which requires consideration by the EAT, since ultimately that aspect of the matter would also become necessary to arrive at a conclusion and the nature of relief to be granted. 8. 7. Therefore, the question as to whether the respondent No.1 had worked in the petitioner/management subsequent to 12.06.1997 is also an aspect which requires consideration by the EAT, since ultimately that aspect of the matter would also become necessary to arrive at a conclusion and the nature of relief to be granted. 8. In that circumstances, if the order impugned is noticed and even if the communication dated 05.01.1995 and the report dated 12.07.2005 are taken into consideration, the same would only establish the obvious i.e., respondent No.1 was appointed on 02.12.1994 and his name was also being proposed for the purpose of approval and admission to grant-in-aid. However, the question that requires consideration is as to whether respondent No.1 was terminated as on 12.06.1997 or 01.06.2003, as claimed by the petitioner and respondent No.1 respectively. While doing so, the EAT is also required to take into consideration whether the termination as claimed by the petitioner dated 12.06.1997 is after following due process of law. Since this aspect of the matter would require consideration and ultimate decision in accordance with law is required to be taken by the EAT, the nature of the consideration as presently made by assuming that the respondent No.1 had continued till 01.06.2003 and had been terminated orally on that day would not be sustainable. However, what cannot also be lost sight is that petitioner herein though had opportunity of producing the material before the EAT to indicate that the petitioner had in fact been terminated on 12.06.1997 had not produced any material before the EAT. 9. In that circumstances, if an opportunity is to be granted to the petitioner, the hardship that would be faced by the respondent No.1 also cannot be ignored. Therefore, an opportunity to the petitioner is required to be granted after duly compensating respondent No.1 in that regard. Hence, to enable such reconsideration by the EAT, the order dated 18.12.2009 passed in Misc. Appeal No.41/2003 is set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as cost to the respondent No.1, within four weeks from this day. 10. On such cost being paid, the appeal in Misc. Appeal No.41/2003 shall stand restored to the file of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga and the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 20.04.2018, as the first date, without notice. 11. 10. On such cost being paid, the appeal in Misc. Appeal No.41/2003 shall stand restored to the file of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Shimoga and the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 20.04.2018, as the first date, without notice. 11. It is made clear, since the order impugned is set aside subject to the condition of payment of cost, this Order would take effect only on payment of the cost. On the other hand, it is made clear that if the cost as ordered is not paid, the order passed herein setting aside the order dated 18.12.2009 will not come into effect and the order impugned would be available for execution. If the condition imposed is complied and the appeal is restored to the file, the EAT shall provide opportunity to the parties to put forth all contentions and thereafter a fresh decision be taken in accordance with law and EAT shall also taken all steps to dispose of main matter in expeditious manner. In terms of the above, writ petition stands disposed of.