ORDER : Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. The petitioners are the State and Department of Horticulture and Project Officer, Sujala-3, in Koppal District. The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) passed on Application No.2467/2018 dated 06.09.2019, whereby the Tribunal was pleased to grant the following relief’s; (i) Application is allowed and the order bearing No. IMAGE 4:58:2011-12 IMAGE-II dated 23/26.3.2018 (Annexure-A12), passed by the 2nd respondent, is set aside. (ii) 1st respondent is directed to accord permission to the 2nd respondent to create a supernumerary post or to adjust the applicant towards the vacancy which is not occupied by the candidate belonging to 2A category and continue the application in service as Horticulture Assistant, by reinstating him in service within a period of two month, with all consequential benefits, except back wages. 3. The fact in brief is that the applicant/1st respondent herein was selected to the post of Horticulture Assistant and the selection was communicated by proceedings dated 14.10.2011 bearing No.PSC 02 RT(4)B/2010. 4. That the 2nd respondent conducted competitive examination pursuant to the notification dated 06.09.2010 and the 1st respondent having been successful in the competitive examination was invited for a personality test on 18.04.2011 and consequently he came to be selected under the 2A category on 14.10.2011 and an order was also passed posting him at Toranagal Horticulture Training Centre, Sandur. That the probation of the applicant/1st respondent came to be declared on 30.08.2014. That the name of the 1st respondent was also reckoned for the purpose of preparation of seniority list. 5. After serving the department for nearly seven years, the respondent No.3 issued an order dated 23/26.03.2018 terminating the services of the applicant/1st respondent. Impugning the said termination, the applicant/1st respondent approached the Tribunal. 6. It is contended that the said termination came to be issued pursuant to the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in Application No.3139/2011 and other connected cases decided on 02.01.2012, which also came to be challenged before this Court and this Court was pleased to uphold the order of the Tribunal and was further pleased to dismiss the writ petition preferred by the Commission (W.P.Nos.9335-9338/2012) on the ground that Diploma in VOC is equivalent to PUC. On account of the order of High Court in W.P. Nos.9335-9338/2012, the Commission reviewed the final selection list. As a consequence of the review of selection list, the applicant came to be removed from the service. 7. It was contended before the Tribunal that even assuming that the applicants in Application No.3139/2011 and connected matters were entitled for appointment on the ground of PUC being equivalent to Diploma in VOC, there were several vacancies under 2A category which had not been filled up on various grounds and it was contended that applicant Nos.243 and 257 were selected but did not take up employment and the two applicants namely the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein could have been accommodated in the said vacancies. It was also contended that the applicant/1st respondent was neither a party before the Tribunal nor before this Court in the litigation initiated by respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. It was also contended that no illegality has been found in the matter involving the appointment of 1st respondent and also further prayed that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in AIR 2007 SC 3127 , the applicant/1st respondent is entitled to similar protection. Further reliance has also been placed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tejinder Kaur and Others Vs. Lady Constable Raj Kumari & Others (2009) 1 SCC 177 , that the respondent No.3 after issuing termination order has in fact advised the State to create supernumerary post and accommodate the applicant. 8. The facts are undisputed and the applicant/1st respondent, who was issued with his appointment order and whose probation was successfully declared, has been apparently removed from service in a manner not known to law. There is no dispute that 1st respondent has been validly appointed and there is no illegality in the matter of appointment of 1st respondent. 8. The facts are undisputed and the applicant/1st respondent, who was issued with his appointment order and whose probation was successfully declared, has been apparently removed from service in a manner not known to law. There is no dispute that 1st respondent has been validly appointed and there is no illegality in the matter of appointment of 1st respondent. The petitioners were duty bound to bring to notice of both the Tribunal and the High Court this fact i.e., with regard to appointment of 1st respondent in the services in 2nd respondent-Department and the applicant/1st respondent not being a party either before the tribunal or High Court, we do not say as to how the said orders holding the claim of respondent Nos.3 and 4 can in any manner to be construed as a ground to oust the applicant and terminate his services. 9. It is not the case of the petitioners that either the Tribunal or the High Court has held or observed that the appointment of applicant/1st respondent is illegal. In fact, the Tribunal after examining the records, as in paragraph No.11 of its order, categorically held that none of the respondents have attributed any wrong doing or found any fault as against the applicant/1st respondent. It is also fairly submitted that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not called in question the appointment of the 1st respondent. 10. In that view of the matter, the unilateral termination, that too without recourse to the procedure established in law is highly arbitrary and condemnable. 11. The Tribunal has also placed reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha & Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 330, in support of its conclusion to set aside the impugned termination order. The Tribunal has also found that despite recommendation of the Commission (KPSC) to create supernumerary post to overcome the stalemate but the petitioner had failed to heed to the same, resulting in a person who has been validly appointed languishing without a livelihood. In fact, the Tribunal has also observed that the decision in Application No.3139/2011 and connected matters disposed of on 02.01.2012 and affirmed by the High Court in W.P.Nos9335-9338/2012, have not a bearing on the appointment of the applicant/1st respondent. In fact, the Tribunal has also observed that the decision in Application No.3139/2011 and connected matters disposed of on 02.01.2012 and affirmed by the High Court in W.P.Nos9335-9338/2012, have not a bearing on the appointment of the applicant/1st respondent. The Tribunal has also placed reliance on the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of Union of India & Others Vs. Parul Debnath & Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 173 , State of Karnataka & Others Vs. C.Lalitha, reported in (2006) 2 SCC 747 , R.C.Sahi & Others Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (1999) 1 SCC 482 and Satish Rawat Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2002) 7 SCC 29 , in support of its conclusions. 12. On perusal of the material, it is apparent that it is the petitioners, who are solely responsible for the present stalemate, in fact this Court by order dated 07.01.2021 had indicated that if the orders are not complied, the Officers would be held responsible for all the costs and consequences. In that regard, we intend to dismiss the writ petition with a direction to the Chief Secretary to conduct an enquiry and fix the responsibility on the Officers, who are responsible for the present state of affairs and recover the back-wages/arrears of salary from the date of order of the Tribunal. The arrears of salary shall be paid by the first petitioner to the 1st respondent from the date of the order of the Tribunal on Application No.2467/2018. The amount shall be released by the Government and thereafter the same shall be recovered from the Officers, who are found guilty of any lapses, which resulted in the applicant/1st respondent being ousted from his post. We completely concur with the relief granted by the Tribunal and no ground is made out warranting interference with the well reasoned order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-. The same shall be paid to the 1st respondent and thereafter the same shall be recovered from the officers who are found guilty of any lapse leading to the present litigation as directed supra.