JUDGMENT : Bharati Dangre, J. The three appellants before us claim to be the Assistant Teachers appointed in the Respondent No.3 School run by the Respondent No.2 and they are aggrieved by the decision delivered by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent Management challenging the order passed by the School Tribunal in favour of each of them. We have before us three Letters Patent Appeals. However, since the learned Single Judge has delivered a lead judgment in Writ Petition No.663/2006 filed by the Management in case of Smt. Shobha Karve and has followed the said decision in other two Writ Petitions i.e. WP No.5450/2007 and WP No. 5439/2007, we glean the facts in case of Smt. Shobha Karve, Respondent in WP No. 663/2006. 2. The case of Smt. Shobha Karve, who approached the School Tribunal being aggrieved by her "otherwise termination" is that pursuant to a resolution passed by the School Committee on 3rd June 1996, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Kamla Nehru Prathamik Shala, Chinchwad, Pune, run by Nehru Shikshan Sanstha. The said school is in receipt of grant-in-aid from the State Government from the year 1990-91 and was running classes from Std. I to Std. VII. Needless to state that being in receipt of the grant, it was governed by the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools, 1977 and Rules of 1981. The case of the appellant before the School Tribunal was that she possessed the qualification of B.A, B.P.Ed and that she was issued an order of appointment on 7th June 1996 in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 and on receipt of the order of appointment she resumed her duties. She further claimed that her appointment was against a permanent vacancy and the order of appointment stated that the appointment would be on probation for a period of two years. On her services being terminated with effect from 9th July 2004, she approached the School Tribunal, Pune Region, under Section 9 of the MEPS Act challenging her "otherwise termination" and the Appeal was numbered as Appeal No.22/2004. In the Appeal, she moved an application for grant of stay and an ex-parte order was granted in her favour. On her services being terminated with effect from 9th July 2004, she approached the School Tribunal, Pune Region, under Section 9 of the MEPS Act challenging her "otherwise termination" and the Appeal was numbered as Appeal No.22/2004. In the Appeal, she moved an application for grant of stay and an ex-parte order was granted in her favour. The ex-parte interim order was however vacated and the Appeal filed by the respondent came to be finally allowed by the Presiding Officer, School Tribunal on 29th November 2005, thereby setting aside the termination of the respondent and with a direction to reinstate with continuity in service with full back wages and by conferring other consequential benefits. 3. The Management being aggrieved by the said order assailed the same in a filed Writ Petition and pertinent to note that in case of other two appellants an order of reinstatement came to be passed by the School Tribunal, the details of which would be set out at a subsequent point of time. In the Writ Petition, the Respondent Management attached the order on the ground that the School Tribunal did not take into account the illegality committed by one Shri Bharat Oval working as Head Master of Kamla Nehru Primary School at the relevant time and who was instrumental in appointing the appellants illegally by forging certain resolutions. The contention of the appellants/Assistant Teachers that their appointments are pursuant to a resolution passed by the School Committee was attributed as an act of fraud and it was averred that no such resolution was validly passed and in fact in the subsequent meeting of the School Committee held on 29th April 1998, when it was disclosed that one Mrs. Barve who had signed the said resolution was not present in the said meeting and her signature was obtained subsequently. Affirming the said fact and as a consequence, the Resolution No.7 in the meeting held on 3rd June 1996 itself was cancelled. It was then averred that the Respondent was in excess of the sanctioned staff and it was at the instance of the Head Master Bharat Oval, Smt. Shobha Karve was granted a permission for training of the postal D.Ed course and it was also a submission of the Respondent Management that at the time of appointment, Smt. Shobha Karve was not qualified educationally to hold the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school. The claim of the two appellants was opposed on the ground that they were over age at the time of appointment and in all, what was claimed before the learned Single Judge by the management while assailing the orders passed by the School Tribunal was that the appointment of the appellant was obnoxiously illegal and the order of the School Tribunal granting relief in their favour therefore called for an interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court. Along with the petition, copy of the resolutions as well as the action initiated against Shri Bharat Kumar Oval for appointing the staff in excess of the sanctioned strength issued by the Education Board of the Chinchwad Municipal Corporation are also placed on record. The order of appointment of the appellant was alleged to be ipso facto void and illegal and since it was effected at the instance of the Head Master, the Management claimed that it was not binding. It was also submitted that criminal proceedings were initiated against Shri Bharat Oval for illegally recruitment of certain persons and he is no longer in the service of the management. 4. Pertinent to note that in case of Smt. Asha Gaonkar, the appellant in LPA No.73/2009, she claimed to have been appointed pursuant to the said resolution dated 3rd June 1996 and the appointment order being issued in her favour on 4th June 1996 with effect from 10th June 1996. At the time of the appointment, she was holding the requisite qualification of D.Ed and her appointment order set out that she is appointed on probation of two years. The said appellant was over age at the time of her appointment but her age was condoned by the State Government and intimation of the same was given to her on 31st December 1999. The said appellant was issued an order of termination with effect from 1st June 2004 which constrained her to approach the School Tribunal. The third appellant Mrs. Sharada Deshmukh claimed to be appointed by an order dated 21st June 1997 and she was armed with the requisite educational qualification of SSC with addition of B.A/D.Ed which made her eligible for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the primary school. She was over age by 10 years, 11 months and 26 days at the time of her appointment. She was over age by 10 years, 11 months and 26 days at the time of her appointment. However, the case pleaded by her is that by a communication dated 31st December 1999, the Education Department had communicated the Head Master of the Kamla Nehru Primary School Chinchwad, that the over age of Smt. Asha Gavkar and Sharada Suresh Deshmukh was condoned by the Dy. Director of Education, Pune. The said appellant was aggrieved by her "otherwise termination" with effect from 1st June 2004. 5. The Management being aggrieved by the direction issued by the School Tribunal directing reinstatement of all the three employees, who according to the Management, were illegally appointed and these appointments, for want of educational qualifications and in absence of appropriate sanction from the management, were void since its inception, filed three separate writ petitions before this court. The learned Single Judge (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J) decided the said writ petition on 2nd December 2008 and allowed the same by setting aside the order passed by the School Tribunal in case of all the three Assistant Teachers. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the submission advanced recorded a finding that on perusal of the documents produced by the management reveal that in the meeting held on 3rd June 1996, there was no resolution to appoint teachers to the said school and rather the only resolution that was passed in the meeting dated 3rd June 1996 was with respect to Constitution of the School Committee and in fact, there is no resolution appointing any of the appellants as alleged. The learned Single Judge strengthened the said finding on the basis that the resolution which was passed in meeting held on 29th April 1998 did not mention the appointment of any teaching or non-teaching staff or revocation of such appointment granted pursuant to the meeting held on 3rd June 1996 and admittedly, an administrator was appointed on the school prior to the meeting held on 3rd June 1996. The learned Single Judge also fortified the said observation when she recorded that when the administrator was in fact appointed, the resolution which the first respondent relies upon ought to bear his signature. However, it do not bear the signature of Shri Deshpande who was then appointed as an administrator. The learned Single Judge also fortified the said observation when she recorded that when the administrator was in fact appointed, the resolution which the first respondent relies upon ought to bear his signature. However, it do not bear the signature of Shri Deshpande who was then appointed as an administrator. The affidavit filed by Shri Bharat Oval was found to be misplaced and the Single Judge recorded that the said affidavit cannot overwrite the genuine documents produced by the petitioners. As regards the eligibility of Smt. Shobha Karve is concerned, learned Single Judge held that at the time of appointment, she was 36 years of age, meaning thereby, in the year 1996, she ought to have been aged 33 years and therefore, in terms of Rule 9(4) of the MEPS Rules of 1981, the age could be relaxed but there is no material on record indicating that there was any relaxation granted in her favour. Another reason to doubt the sanctity of the Resolution dated 3rd June 1996 is the statement of Smt. Barve in the subsequent meeting where she stated that she was not present in the said meeting. In the wake of these doubts being raised about the sanctity of the resolution dated 3rd June 1996, the learned Single Judge held that no reliance can be placed on the resolution produced by the appellants. When a submission was advanced that one Smt. Vaswad who was appointed on the basis of the same resolution is continued in service, the said submission was rejected on the count that merely because Smt. Vaswad is continued in service would not entitle the appellants to any relief. It is on this premise the writ petitions filed by the management challenging the order in favour of all the three appellants were allowed. Hence, the three Letters Patent Appeals. 6. The sheet anchor of the argument of the parties is the resolution dated 3rd June 1996. The same is annexed to all the three appeals and since we have gleaned the facts from the LPA No.86 of 2009, we continue to refer to the paper book of the said Appeal and the said document finds place at page 83 of the same. The said documents at page 83 is titled as true copy of the resolution. The same is annexed to all the three appeals and since we have gleaned the facts from the LPA No.86 of 2009, we continue to refer to the paper book of the said Appeal and the said document finds place at page 83 of the same. The said documents at page 83 is titled as true copy of the resolution. The date mentioned is 3rd June 1996 and it has a mention of Resolution No.7 which reads thus :- Resolution No.7 : In terms of Subject No.6, some teachers on probation, on account of the qualification were not given order of permanency by Shri B.G. Kapote, a fit person. It is unanimously resolved that such teachers should be given new order of appointment by the Head Master (School Committee Secretary). The teachers are enumerated as under :- S.No. Name of the Teacher Appointment Date Pay Scale Period 1. Shobha Karve 07.06.1993 1200 – 2040 Probation 2. Sou. Bhosale 01.02.1995 1400 – 2600 Permanent 3. Ms. Patil Smita 01.08.1994 1200 – 2040 Permanent 4. Sou. Garud 06.12.1995 1200 – 2040 Permanent 5. Sou. Vaswad 03.06.1996 1200 – 2040 Probation 6. Sou. Patil Sarala 06.06.1996 1200 – 2040 Permanent 7. Sou. Gavkar 10.06.1996 1200 – 2040 Probation 8. Shri Pardeshi 13.06.1996 1200 – 2040 Permanent The said resolution ends with name of the proposer as Shri R.M. Rodge and Shri B.D. Oval as seconder. 7. The said resolution makes sense when one reads the documents placed at page no.84 of the paper book. The said document is another resolution by the School Committee of Kamla Nehru Primary, Secondary School taken in the meeting dated 3rd June 1996 held at 11.00 a.m. The Chairman of the meeting is recorded to be one Shri Golap Bharat Digambar and in the column as to whether any respectable person or any Officer is present, it records name of Shri Mhaske M.N. (Encroachment Department). Document at page no.84 contains Resolution no.6 which reads as under : "In light of the decision in favour of the teachers, the School Committee in existence prior to the Academic Session 1996-97 is dissolved and from the month of June, a School Committee is constituted of the Administrator, Head Master, Non-teaching staff vide Resolution No.6. Document at page no.84 contains Resolution no.6 which reads as under : "In light of the decision in favour of the teachers, the School Committee in existence prior to the Academic Session 1996-97 is dissolved and from the month of June, a School Committee is constituted of the Administrator, Head Master, Non-teaching staff vide Resolution No.6. The following Committee is constituted in the meeting dated 3 rd June 1996 (i) Hon'ble V. V. Deshpande, Administrator (ii) Hon'ble Bharat Oval, Head Master and Secretary (iii) Hon'ble Ashok Rogde, Joint Secretary (non teaching) (iv) Hon'ble Sou Sunanda S. Barve, Member. The document further reads that the appointment of the Committee so constituted has been granted approval unanimously by Resolution No.6. The said resolution bears signatures of Bharat Oval, proposer and Ashok Rodge, a seconder. Resolution No.7 further mentions that from the Academic Sessions 1994-95 to the Academic Session 1996-97, the fit person Shri B.G. Kapote on the pretext that the teachers do not pay the money, the teachers on probation were refused confirmation and some of the teachers were refused appointment. Resultantly, the Secretary of the School Committee Shri Bharat Oval was granted approval in terms of Appendix A [Rule 2(1) (e)]. The said resolution records Sou. Barve as proposer and Shri Rodge as seconder. The aforesaid two documents clearly reflect that on 3rd June 1996, two resolutions were passed i.e. Resolution Nos.6 and 7 and vide Resolution No.6, a School Committee was constituted in which Shri Bharat Oval is appointed as the Head Master and Secretary and he was authorized to take steps to issue orders of appointment to the teachers in furtherance of the resolution no.6. The names of the teachers which were included as part of the resolution no.7 include the name of the present appellant. The submission of the respondent management is that this resolution is fraudulent and the same has been accepted by the learned Single Judge on the basis of a resolution of the School Committee dated 29th April 1998. Perusal of the said document which finds place at page no.102 of the paper book reveals that on 29th April 1998 under the Chairmanship of the Administrator of the Nehru Education Society, Pune, the School Committee conducted its meeting. Perusal of the said document which finds place at page no.102 of the paper book reveals that on 29th April 1998 under the Chairmanship of the Administrator of the Nehru Education Society, Pune, the School Committee conducted its meeting. The document reveal that the meeting was scheduled at 3.00 p.m but the Secretary of the School Committee did not present himself and therefore, Ashok Rodge proceeded to the residence of Sou. Barve and her presence was secured in the meeting. On reading the minutes of the earlier meeting dated 3rd June 1996, the two persons who attended the meeting Sou. Barve and Shri Rodge stated that they were not aware of Resolution No.7. Mrs. Barve went on to state that she was not present in the said meeting whereas Shri Rodge proceeded to state that he was only aware of Resolution No.8. On recording the said aspect, the School Committee recorded that though Mrs. Barve did not attend the meeting on 3rd June 1996, she signed the resolutions subsequently and this act is not as per rules and therefore, it resolved all the resolutions passed in the meeting dated 3rd June 1996 stand cancelled. Certain other decisions were also taken in the meeting. Pertinent to note that signatory to the said minutes of meeting are Mrs. Barve (teachers' representative) Administrator (Chairman) and Shri Rodge (Non- teaching representative). It is on the basis of this document the management has contended before the Single Judge and even before us that the resolution dated 3rd June 1996 as a non-existent resolution since it was not subsequently approved in the next meeting which was held on 29th April 1998. 8. We are amazed by the said submission of the management. A resolution dated 3rd June 1996 which is put up for approval after a gap of two years is doubted on a statement of Mrs. Barve and Shri Rodge. Pertinent to note that the proposer to the resolution no.7 is Shri Rodge and Bharat Oval whereas for resolution no.7 by which the School Committee is constituted, the proposer is Bharat Oval and seconder is Ashok Rodge. Mrs. Barve is a proposer to Subject No.7 for authorization Shri Bharat Oval being conferred with the powers. Several events have occurred between these two dates i.e. 3rd June 1996 and 29th April 1998. Mrs. Barve is a proposer to Subject No.7 for authorization Shri Bharat Oval being conferred with the powers. Several events have occurred between these two dates i.e. 3rd June 1996 and 29th April 1998. Based on the resolution no.7 passed by the School Committee, the teachers who were earlier appointed but whose probation period was not confirmed were issued with fresh appointment orders and some new teachers also came to be appointed on probation. On their appointment their proposals for approval were also forwarded to the School Education Board of the Corporation. The proposals in respect of Smt. Karve was declined on 4th September 1999 on the ground of non-availability of post and educational qualification. On a proposal being forwarded by the Head Master to permit Smt. Karve to prosecute the studies for acquitting D.Ed qualification, it was granted and she was permitted to prosecute the diploma in Education. Not only this, the proposal of the other two appellants came to be forwarded to the Education Department for condoning the overage which the Education Department was pleased to condone. It is to be noted that Smt. Karve was granted approval for one academic session, 2001-02 which is reflective of the fact that she continued to work on the establishment of the respondent and the approval order dated 1st January 2004 approved her appointment for the academic session 2001-02 in the pay scale of untrained teacher. In light of all these subsequent developments, it cannot be said that the anchor sheet document i.e. Resolution of 3rd June 1996 being sought to be approved leisurely after two years in the meeting held on 29th April 1998 would deprive the appellants of their lawful claim. 9. The School Tribunal taking into consideration the fact that the appellants were issued appointment order on probation and on completion of the satisfactory period of probation directed reinstatement of the appellants with back wages. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal after recording that the appellants came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Nehru Shikshan Sanstha on different dates and had resumed duties, they had rendered continuous service, however, their services were not approved though the proposal came to be forwarded to the Administrative Officer, Municipal School Board. The Presiding Officer, School Tribunal after recording that the appellants came to be appointed as Assistant Teacher by the Nehru Shikshan Sanstha on different dates and had resumed duties, they had rendered continuous service, however, their services were not approved though the proposal came to be forwarded to the Administrative Officer, Municipal School Board. Considering that the appellants had completed more than two years of service and taking into consideration the provisions contained in the MEPS Act of 1977 and the Rules therein, the Tribunal held that the termination of the appellants could not be sustained. As far as the educational qualifications are concerned, the Tribunal had recorded that all the appellants except Mrs.Karve possess the necessary qualification at the time of their appointment. The Appeals were therefore allowed with a recommendation to the State Government that the back wages directed to be paid to the employees may be deducted from the grant due and payable and they may become due and payable in future to the management and to be paid to the employee directly. 10. The learned Single Judge, on expressing doubt about the existence of the resolution dated 3rd June 1996 and by recording that in the meeting of the School Committee that was held on 3rd June 1996, the resolution was distinct than the one which was sought to be relied upon has set aside the order of the School Tribunal. This was the only ground on which the order of the School Tribunal was set aside. The School Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the appellants were appointed by issuing order of appointment based on the resolution passed by the Management and they had put in more than two years of service and thus acquired the status of permanent employee. As far as the educational qualifications are concerned, barring Mrs. Shobha Karve, the other two appellants were in possession of the desired educational qualifications. As far as Mrs. Karve is concerned, in terms of the Government Resolution dated 2nd June 2000, a teacher who is not trained but appointed prior to 25th November 1997 is entitled and permitted to acquire the educational qualification required for being appointed as a teacher in primary school. In any case, it is the case of Smt. Shobha Karve that in the year 2000, she acquired necessary qualification i.e. D.Ed. 11. In any case, it is the case of Smt. Shobha Karve that in the year 2000, she acquired necessary qualification i.e. D.Ed. 11. The learned Single Judge wrongly assumed that the appellants were not educationally qualified and in fact the appellant in LPA No.73/2009 and 123/2010 possess the educational qualification S.S.C D.Ed with additional B.A. degree. Further, the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration that the dispute in the management resulted into the school being placed under administration from 1993 and from time to time, the Administrator on the said school were appointed by exercising the powers under Section 41D of Bombay Public Trust. 12. In a proceeding instituted in the earlier round where the Government had directed the Officer of the Municipal School Board, the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation to file an affidavit bringing on record the correct facts, an affidavit was placed on record on 10th October 2006. In the said affidavit, the Administrative Officer specifically admitted that the resolution dated 3rd June 1996 as accepted as correct by his office and pursuant to the said resolution, the approvals were conferred on one Mrs.Sarla Patil and one Mrs.Madhuri Kedari (Ms.Madhuri Vasvad). It thus becomes clear that the said resolution which is bone of contention of the management, was in fact relied upon while confirming the appointments of other teachers who came to be appointed pursuant to the said resolution being passed. If the said resolution is accepted as the stream from which the appointment of the other two teachers flows, then, it is not open for the management to deny its existence. The Learned Judge has therefore fallen in error in accepting the contention of the management while deciding the writ petition. The existence of this resolution is a matter of internal administration for the management and there is no reason for the appellants to produce the same on record. The learned Single Judge could have sought for the record from the management and verified the crucial aspect i.e. that there were two resolutions passed on 3rd June 1996. The error that has crept in is on account of the fact of the learned Single Judge proceeded on a footing that a resolution was passed on 3rd June 1996 vide Subject No.6 whereas Resolution No.7 is a fall out of Subject No.6/Resolution No.6. The error that has crept in is on account of the fact of the learned Single Judge proceeded on a footing that a resolution was passed on 3rd June 1996 vide Subject No.6 whereas Resolution No.7 is a fall out of Subject No.6/Resolution No.6. We say nothing more except taking note that the learned Judge has fallen into the trap of the management in accepting that there was only one resolution passed on 3rd June 1996. 13. In such circumstances, the finding recorded by the Single Judge cannot be sustained in the factual context and the appellants cannot be deprived of the benefits conferred on them by the School Tribunal. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and is quashed and set aside, thereby reviving the order passed by the learned School Tribunal in case of each of the appellants. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.