JUDGMENT : ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J. 1. The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9358 of 2010 to the extent it directs the Nagarpalika to continue the services of respondent No.1 herein on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the Nagarpalika. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the Letters Patent Appeal are as under :- 2.1 Respondent No.1 is a primary teacher who claims to be holding educational qualification as required under the relevant rules for recruitment as primary teacher at the relevant point of time. She was appointed on 03.05.1991 as primary teacher. 2.2 It is alleged that respondent No.1 viz. Ranjanben Jayantilal Vaidya was overaged and was still selected by the appellant herein and therefore, by letter dated 13.12.1991, the Director of Primary Education was pleased to cancel the appointment of Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 was thereafter constrained to file Special Civil Application No. 1359 of 1992 wherein the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to quash order dated 13.12.1991 after hearing the parties by order dated 17.03.1992. 2.3 Thereafter, the respondent’s case was considered by the State Government and the Education Department was pleased to pass order dated 13.10.1992 condoning the age bar of nine months in the case of respondent No.1 herein and the same was also communicated to the respondent vide order dated 20.11.1992. 2.4 It is further averred that inspite of serving for 13 years, respondent No.1 was asked to provide the documents and certificate through proper channel in respect of her appointment. Further, by communication dated 12.10.2006, respondent No.1 was asked to remain present before the Director, Primary Education with all the documents of appointment and qualification. Respondent No.1 submitted all the necessary documents. It was also brought to the notice of the respondent authority that the issue of her appointment stood concluded in the year 1996 by the Department vide order dated 10.08.1996. 2.5 To the shock and surprise of respondent No.1, by communication dated 27.07.2010, without any notice or opportunity of hearing, the State Government terminated the services of respondent No.1 after a period of 20 years. 2.5 To the shock and surprise of respondent No.1, by communication dated 27.07.2010, without any notice or opportunity of hearing, the State Government terminated the services of respondent No.1 after a period of 20 years. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 preferred Special Civil Application No. 9358 of 2010 praying for the following reliefs : - “(A) To quash the order/communication dated 27/7/2010 passed by the respondent no.1 at ANNEXURE-A and any action in pursuance to the same by the respondents. (B) During the pendency admission and final disposal of the petition stay the operation and implementation of illegal order/communication dated 27/7/2010 passed by the respondent no.1 at ANNEXURE-A. (C) To grant cost of this petition. (D) To grant such other and further relief/s that is just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2.6 After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge by common judgment and order dated 03.10.2016 in Special Civil Application Nos. 9358 to 9364 of 2010 was pleased to allow the Special Civil Applications and set aside the order of termination. By the said order, it was held as follows :- “14. Thus it can be noticed that after 7 years of appointment, action of termination was not permitted. In the instant case, action is taken after 20 years after the respondent being aware of the illegalities/irregularities in the appointment. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, in absence of satisfactory explanation with regard to delayed action, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 15. However, the prayer by the petitioners for declaration that they are regularly appointed teachers appears to be misconceived in law. The petitioners who lacked the requisite qualifications on the date of advertisement were not entitled to be even considered for interview. They were illegally obliged as discussed in detail hereinabove. Therefore, at the inception of their services, it cannot be said that they were appointed in accordance with law. Therefore, the relief for declaring them as regular teachers is declined in so far as the petitions other than Special Civil Application No. 9358 of 2010 are concerned. So far as Special Civil Application No. 9359 of 2010 is concerned, it has been noticed that the obstacle of age bar came to be removed by condoning the said aspect. The petitioner possessed certificate of Akhil Bhartiya Gandharv Mahavidyalay Mandal, Mumbai. So far as Special Civil Application No. 9359 of 2010 is concerned, it has been noticed that the obstacle of age bar came to be removed by condoning the said aspect. The petitioner possessed certificate of Akhil Bhartiya Gandharv Mahavidyalay Mandal, Mumbai. The learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that in Special Civil Application Nos. 11240 of 2010 and 11277 of 2010 a direction came to be issued on 15.9.2016 to recognize the institutions imparting education in music. Thus, on the date of the appointment of the petitioner i.e. on 2.8.1991 such institutions were not recognized by the Government and therefore, it was not possible for her to comply with the condition of producing certificate of Sangeet Visharat from Government recognized institutions. Thus, the petitioner Ranjanben Jayantilal Vaidya in Special Civil Application No. 9358 of 2010 is able to clear the inroads in her appointment. She can thus be said to have been appointed through regular selection process. 16. It is also required to be noted that five posts were sanctioned against leave reserve vacancies on the condition of respondent nagarpalika bearing the expenditure. The affidavit by respondent State indicates that the State would not bear the expenditure of such teachers. It is obvious that when the posts were sanctioned on the condition of nagarpalika bearing the expenditure, there is no question of saddling the respondent State with the liability to bear the expenditure of such teachers. The said contention on behalf of the State Government is, therefore, upheld. 17. In the result, the petitions partly succeed. The petitioner Ranjanben Jayantilal Vaidya in Special Civil Application No. 9358 of 2010 is declared to have been appointed through a regular selection process and the impugned order dated 5.8.2010 terminating the services of the petitioners is quashed and set aside. They are directed to be continued on the set of Ankleshwar nagarpalika at the cost of the said nagarpalika. It is clarified that the respondents shall not down grade the petitioners to Class III or Class IV posts as indicated in the order dated 27.7.2010. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.” 2.7 The impugned judgment and order clearly held that since respondent No.1 herein was able to clear the inroads in her appointment, she can be said to have been appointed through regular selection process. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.” 2.7 The impugned judgment and order clearly held that since respondent No.1 herein was able to clear the inroads in her appointment, she can be said to have been appointed through regular selection process. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 17 specifically held that the sole respondent herein is declared to have been appointed through regular selection process and order dated 27.07.2010 terminating her services is quashed and set aside. 2.8 It is the case of the appellant herein that since the sole respondent herein was already being paid the salary by the State Government till her termination on 27.07.2010 and further that since the learned Single Judge held that she has been appointed through regular selection process, no Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the impugned order in Special Civil Application No. 9358 of 2010. However, since the learned Single Judge also directed that for rest of the writ petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos.9359 to 9364 of 2010, these teachers be continued on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the Nagarpalika, aggrieved, the appellant herein had preferred Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 5 of 2017, 6 of 2017, 7 of 2017, 9 of 2017, 10 of 2017, 11 of 2017 before the Division Bench of this Court. By judgment and order dated 24.01.2018, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to hold as follow : - “[11.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, Letters Patent Appeal Nos.5/2017 to 7/2017 and 9/2017 to 11/2017 preferred by the Ankleshwar Municipality/Nagarpalika are hereby allowed. Impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application Nos.9358/2010 to 9364/2010 (except Special Civil Application No.9358/2010) is hereby quashed and set aside insofar as directing that the original petitioners to be continued on set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the Nagarpalika.” 2.9 That by letter dated 08.05.2019, the State Government held that in view of order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the High Court, the pay of the respondent No.1 herein should be at the cost of the appellant herein and this fact was also intimated to the appellant herein. Accordingly, the State Government held that though the respondent was appointed by Ankleshwar Nagar Prathmik Shikshan Samiti, her salary expenses are to be borne by the appellant Nagarpalika from its own expenses. 2.10 Aggrieved by letter dated 08.05.2019 of the State Government, the appellant herein filed Misc. Civil Application No. (For Review) No. 1 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 9358 of 2010 praying for following relief :- ““9(B) to review the oral order dated 03/10/2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.9358 of 2010 and thereby be further pleased to clarify that on service of Opponent No.1 being regularized, liability of salary and other expenditure is casted upon Opponent no.4 Municipal School Board.” 2.11 By order dated 05.09.2019, the learned Single Judge was pleased to reject the review application holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and review jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to assign the meaning to the observations other than what is apparent in the judgment. 2.12 Aggrieved, the appellant Nagarpalika has preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 674 of 2021 praying to set aside order dated 03.10.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 9358 of 2010 to the extent it directs the Nagarpalika to continue the services of respondent No.1 on the set up of Nagarpalika at the cost of the Nagarpalika. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah for the appellant Nagarpalika, learned advocate Mr. Pushpadatta Vyas for respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Soham Joshi for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah appearing for the appellant Nagarpalika submitted that by order dated 03.10.2016, the learned Single Judge in clear terms has held that respondent No.1 was appointed through regular selection process and also gave a declaration to that effect while setting aside the termination order in respect of respondent No.1. It was further submitted that the observation “They are directed to be continued on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the said Nagarpalika” was in respect of writ petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 9359 to 9364 of 2010 which also came to be decided by common judgment and order impugned herein. It was further submitted that the observation “They are directed to be continued on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the said Nagarpalika” was in respect of writ petitioners in Special Civil Application Nos. 9359 to 9364 of 2010 which also came to be decided by common judgment and order impugned herein. It was further submitted that since respondent No.1 herein was already being paid salary by the State Government and as the learned Single Judge in the impugned order also held and declared that she was appointed through regular selection process, there was no need for the appellant Nagarpalika to prefer the Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. He submitted that accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeals were preferred only in Special Civil Application Nos. 9359 to 9364 of 2010. It was submitted that the said Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 5 of 2017, 6 of 2017, 7 of 2017, 9 of 2017, 10 of 2017, 11 of 2017 came to be allowed by the Division Bench of this Court holding that the original writ petitioners therein be continued on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the Nagarpalika cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Shah further submitted that the State Government by its letter dated 08.05.2019 misinterpreted order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge (impugned herein) to hold that by the said order, it was directed that respondent No1 herein be continued on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika and accordingly, directed that her pay is not sanctioned from the grant of the Director, Primary Education. The said intimation was accordingly given to the Nagarpalika for information and implementation. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah then submitted that in view of wrong interpretation by the State Government, the appellant Ankleshwar Nagarpalika is constrained to file the present Letters Patent Appeal and seeks clarification of the direction passed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Pushpadatta Vyas appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 was appointed through regular selection process and her appointment had also been upheld earlier in the year 1996 by the State Government by providing age relaxation. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Pushpadatta Vyas appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 was appointed through regular selection process and her appointment had also been upheld earlier in the year 1996 by the State Government by providing age relaxation. It was further submitted that she was also being paid salary from the grant of Director of Primary Education and she was appointed against the sanctioned post. He further submitted that respondent No.1 was being paid salary from the grant of Director, Primary Education till issuance of letter dated 08.05.2019 wrongly interpreting the impugned order herein. He also supported the contentions of learned advocate for the appellant that no Letters Patent Appeal was preferred in case of respondent No.1 herein being Special Civil Application No. 9358 of 2010 only because she was being paid salary from the government grant and she had been declared to have been appointed through regular selection process. He submitted that despite succeeding in his writ petition, the respondent authorities have stopped her salary grant and directed that she be paid salary from the set up of Nagarpalika at its own cost. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Soaham Joshi appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submitted that letter dated 08.05.2019 was correct and that though respondent No.1 was declared to have been appointed through a regular selection process, the sentence “They are directed to be continued on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the said Nagarpalika” in the common impugned judgment and order would cover respondent No.1 herein and there is no differentiation in the said direction. It was submitted that respondent No.1 was held at par with other writ petitioners whose petitions were decided by common impugned judgment and order and therefore, she was also directed to be continued on the set up of the Ankleshwar Nagarpalika. It was submitted that letter dated 08.05.2019 was correctly passed and no Letters Patent Appeal was filed in Special Civil Application No. 9358 of 2010 at the relevant point of time while challenging the impugned judgment and order in respect of Special Civil Application No. 9359 to 9364 of 2010. It was also submitted that the impugned order having become final at that point of time, the State Government issued letter dated 08.05.2019 in question. 7. It was also submitted that the impugned order having become final at that point of time, the State Government issued letter dated 08.05.2019 in question. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the documents on record and has given its anxious consideration to the same. The only issue in consideration before this Court is the interpretation of paragraph 17 whereby the learned Single Judge has passed following direction:- “17. In the result, the petitions partly succeed. The petitioner Ranjanben Jayantilal Vaidya in Special Civil Application No. 9358 of 2010 is declared to have been appointed through a regular selection process and the impugned order dated 5.8.2010 terminating the services of the petitioners is quashed and set aside. They are directed to be continued on the set of Ankleshwar nagarpalika at the cost of the said nagarpalika. It is clarified that the respondents shall not down grade the petitioners to Class III or Class IV posts as indicated in the order dated 27.7.2010. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.” 8. The said paragraph 17 declares that respondent No.1 herein has been appointed through regular selection process. It further directs that the writ petitioners are directed to be continued on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the Nagarpalika. 9. It seems that all the writ petitioners at the relevant point of time were working as primary teachers with the Ankleshwar Nagarpalika. Their services came to be terminated by letter dated 27.07.2010 as well as office order dated 05.08.2010. It appears that the State Government raised an objection that against the sanction of five post of teachers (Leave Reserved Vacancy) for which the expenditure was to be borne by the Municipality, the writ petitioners in the common impugned judgment and order came to be appointed. It was also alleged about lack of their educational qualifications and the said letter further disapproved the appointment/selection of such teachers. It further noted that though appointment of such teachers was illegal, they were absorbed in the regular establishment of the Municipality of School. Though the expenditure was to be borne by the Management, the teachers were absorbed in the regular establishment of the Municipal School and the expenditure was deducted against the grant released by the Director of the Education Department. Though the expenditure was to be borne by the Management, the teachers were absorbed in the regular establishment of the Municipal School and the expenditure was deducted against the grant released by the Director of the Education Department. Thus, for these appointments, the Municipality was dis-entitled for the grant from the State Government and thus, suggested termination of their services with effect from the date of their appointment. All these writ petitioners in the common impugned judgment and order filed respective Special Civil Applications seeking a declaration that they are regular employees for all purposes. 10. It has been noted by the learned Single Judge that in respect of respondent No.1 herein, the bar of age came to be condoned and obstacle of age bar came to be removed by condoning the said aspect by the State Authority and thus, respondent No.1 herein is able to clear inroads in her appointment and can be said to have been appointed through regular selection process. However, the learned Single Judge also noted that though the State Government had sanctioned five posts of teachers against Leave Reserved Vacancy for which the expenditure was to be borne by the Municipality, the appellant Municipality appointed seven teachers (the writ petitioners in the common impugned judgment and order). The State Government also contended that the said writ petitioners had been removed not because of defective selection process, but due to lack of educational qualifications also and mere continuance for long time would not result into regularization in absence of possession of requisite educational qualifications or other requirements. The learned Single Judge also observed that the purpose of the respondent State was not to terminate the services, but to avoid the burden of salary and other expenditure incurred on account of the illegally appointed teachers by the Nagarpalika. 11. In the opinion of this Court, once respondent No.1 is declared to have been appointed through regular selection process and order dated 27.07.2010/05.08.2010 terminating her services has been set aside, respondent No.1 stood absorbed on the regular establishment as was the position which stood before her termination. Paragraph 8 of letter dated 08.05.2019 records that respondent No.1 was being paid salary from the government grant holding her to be regularly appointed as per rules. Paragraph 8 of letter dated 08.05.2019 records that respondent No.1 was being paid salary from the government grant holding her to be regularly appointed as per rules. However, it further interprets impugned order dated 03.10.2016 holding that Hon’ble Court has directed that she should be continued on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the said Nagarpalika. This Court holds that such a interpretation by the State Government in its letter dated 08.05.2019 is absolutely wrong in as much as the learned Single Judge has declared in specific terms that she has been appointed through regular selection and her termination is quashed and set aside on the said ground. 12. Further, the Coordinate Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 24.01.2018 in the Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 5 of 2017, 6 of 2017, 7 of 2017, 9 of 2017, 10 of 2017, 11 of 2017 preferred against the remaining Special Civil Applications by the appellant Nagarpalika, has quashed and set aside the direction in the impugned order herein holding and directing that the original writ petitioners therein be continued on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the said Nagarpalika. 13. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration common judgment and order dated 24.01.2018 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 5 of 2017 and other connected appeals, the direction that respondent No.1 herein be continued on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the said Nagarpalika does not apply to respondent No.1 herein and further has been set aside vide order dated 24.01.2018. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant Ankleshwar Nagarpalika is hereby allowed and common impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9358 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside in so far as directing that respondent No.1 be continued on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the said Nagarpalika. 14. In view of above judgment and order passed in the main Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No.1 of 2019 for stay also stands disposed of.