ORDER : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mandya in E.A.T.No.1 of 2008. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows: 3. On 23.08.1985, one D. Mariswamy was appointed to the post of Assistant Librarian. After the demise of said D. Mariswamy, a notification dated 20.02.1993 was issued calling for applications to the post of Assistant Librarian, which became vacant on the death of D. Mariswamy. H.S. Channegowda was appointed as a Library Assistant on temporary basis vide appointment order dated 27.04.1993. The trust vide its communication dated 13.03.2003 addressed to the Commissioner Collegiate Education to regularise the appointment of H.S. Channegowda as Library Assistant. The State Government issued impugned endorsement on 21.03.2006 stating that the post of librarian is recognised as a backlog post, and H.S.Channegowda could not be appointed to the said post. Further, on 15.07.2008 another endorsement was issued by the State Government stating that, H.S.Channegowda, has  not worked for 10 years against sanctioned post, and hence, his case cannot be considered for regularisation. It is contended that the management has terminated the service of H.S. Channegowda. Aggrieved by the order of termination and endorsements, he preferred an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal in E.A.T.No.1 of 2008. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 4. The management has filed a statement of objections contending that the appeal filed by H.S. Channegowda is not maintainable. It is contended that H.S. Channegowda filed a writ petition in W.P.No.8887/2003 before this court and it was allowed, directing the State Government to pass appropriate order in the matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, the representation of H.S. Channegowda was rejected by the State vide endorsement dated 15.07.2008 on the ground that there is no sanctioned vacant post of Library Assistant and there is no vacancy. It is contended that H.S.Channegowda is not entitled for employment to the post of Library Assistant. The order passed by Government cannot be termed as an order under Section 94(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, when there is no order of termination. Hence, the appeal filed in Educational Appellate Tribunal by H.S. Channegowda is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 5. The order passed by Government cannot be termed as an order under Section 94(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, when there is no order of termination. Hence, the appeal filed in Educational Appellate Tribunal by H.S. Channegowda is not maintainable. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 5. The tribunal, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following points for consideration. i. Whether the vacancy in question is a back log vacancy? ii. Whether the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are justified in asking that the post in question is not a sanctioned post and that he is not worked for 10 years and then be regularised? iii. Whether any interference is called for ? if so what relief or decree? 6. The tribunal, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after appreciating the entire evidence, answered point No.1 and 2 in the negative and point No.3 in the affirmative. The tribunal, vide its judgment dated 27.05.2011, allowed the appeal with costs and directed for the immediate reinstatement of H.S.Channegowda. 7. The order of tribunal was challenged in W.P.No.13701/2012 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 06.09.2012, allowed the writ petition in part, set aside the judgment dated 27.05.2011 and directed the tribunal to confine its consideration regarding removal of H.S.Channegowda, and that it can pass consequential order if his removal is bad. 8. After remand, the tribunal framed the reframed points for consideration, which reads as follows: i. Whether the appeal filed under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, challenging the Endorsement dated 21.03.2006 and 15.07.2008 passed by the respondent No.3 is maintainable before this tribunal? ii. Whether the termination of the service of the appellant as a Library Assistant with effect from June 2004 by not allowing him to put the attendance or to discharge the duty as Library Assistant work by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is arbitrary, perverse, malafide and violative to the rules of natural justice and thereby the act of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 of such nature is intending to be punitive which can be termed as arbitrary termination as contended by the appellant? iii. If so what decree or order? 9. The tribunal, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal on 30.06.2015. 10. Again the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the tribunal was challenged by H.S.Channegowda in W.P.No.53159/2015. iii. If so what decree or order? 9. The tribunal, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal on 30.06.2015. 10. Again the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the tribunal was challenged by H.S.Channegowda in W.P.No.53159/2015. This Court dismissed the writ petition on 31.10.2018. 11. H.S.Channegowda filed the writ appeal in W.A.No.627/2019 challenging the order dated 31.10.2018 passed in W.P.No.53159/2015. The writ appeal was disposed of granting a liberty to H.S.Channegowda to file a Review Petition before the learned Single Judge. Subsequently, he filed a Review Petition in R.P.No.542/2019, was allowed and the Writ Petition was restored. 12. Further, this Court in W.P.No.53159/2015, vide its order dated 02.03.2020, remitted the matter to the tribunal to address and formulate issues in accordance with the order at ‘iii’ of operative portion of the order dated 06.09.2012 in W.P.No.13701/2012. 13. Again, after remand, the tribunal dismissed the appeal in Educational Appellate Tribunal No.1/2008 vide its judgment dated 23.04.2021. The said order dated 23.04.2021 was challenged by H.S.Channegowda in W.P.No.12391/2021 before this Court. This Court allowed the Writ Petition on 23.01.2023, remitting the matter to the tribunal to reconsider the following question, which reads as follows: “Whether the petitioner proves that his removal from employment by the fourth respondent as an Assistant Librarian is contrary to law and he is entitled for reinstatement in the light of the Management’s case that the petitioner has been discontinued from a temporary employement in accordance with law”. 14. After remand, the appellate tribunal has reframed the points for consideration. The tribunal after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, and point No.3 as per the final order. 15. The appeal was allowed with cost vide judgment dated 21.4.2023 and it was held that removal of H.S. Channegowda from the employment as an Assistant Librarian is contrary to the law and he is entitled for reinstatement. 16. H.S. Channegowda, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Tribunal declining to grant back wages, preferred a writ petition in WP No.21985/2023. The management, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Tribunal regarding the reinstatement filed a writ petition in WP No. 28129/ 2023. 17. Heard Smt. Vidyulatha, the learned counsel for the management, and Sri. Ganesh Bhat for H.S. Channegowda. 18. The management, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Tribunal regarding the reinstatement filed a writ petition in WP No. 28129/ 2023. 17. Heard Smt. Vidyulatha, the learned counsel for the management, and Sri. Ganesh Bhat for H.S. Channegowda. 18. Learned counsel for the management submits that the appointment of H.S. Channegowda is only a temporary, and it is not against the sanctioned or vacant post. She also submits that the petitioner Chennegowda did not report to the duty, and he abandoned the service. She also submits that the petitioner did not sign the attendance register. The tribunal committed an error in recording a finding that H.S. Channegowda was appointed against the vacant post. She also submits that although the management has recommended for regularisation of the petitioner, the Government declined to consider the recommendation made by the management. She also submits that the endorsement issued by the Government is challenged by H.S.Channegowda. Hence the appeal filed by H.S.Channegowda is not maintainable. She also submits that the appointment of the petitioner is temporary, and he was appointed as an Assistant Librarian. She also submits that now there is no post of either librarian or assistant librarian. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to allow the writ petition filed by the management, and prays to dismiss the writ petition filed by H.S. Channegowda . 19. Per contra, learned counsel for H.S.Channegowda submits that the management has appointed H.S.Channegowda as an Assistant Librarian by an appointment order as per Annexure A produced in WP No. 28129 of 2023. He continued in the service. He submits that H.S.Channagowda submitted a representation to the management to recommend his name for regularisation. He submits that the State Government rejected the representation on the ground that there is no vacant post of librarian/Assistant Librarian. 20. He also submits that the management without holding any enquiry, without issuing a charge memo, orally terminated H.S.Channegowda from the service. He also submits that the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the management was considered by this court in the writ petition filed by H.S. Channegowda as well as by the management. He submits that the tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the order of termination is illegal, and has rightly passed an order for reinstatement. 21. He also submits that, the tribunal while passing an order has not recorded any finding on the back wages. He submits that the tribunal was justified in recording its finding that the order of termination is illegal, and has rightly passed an order for reinstatement. 21. He also submits that, the tribunal while passing an order has not recorded any finding on the back wages. He submits that Channegowda is entitled to back wages. Hence, he also submits that since for more than 25 years, he is out of service and he is in a financial distress, and accordingly, prays to grant back wages by modifying the judgment passed by the Tribunal. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition filed by H.S.Channegowda, and dismiss the writ petition filed by the management. 22. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 23. There is no dispute that initially H.S.Channegowda was appointed on a temporary basis as per Annexure A produced in WP No.28129 of 2023. Thereafter, the representation was submitted through the College Authorities for regularisation of service of H.S.Channegowda. However, the Government issued endorsement dated 21.03.2006 stating that H.S.Channegowda could not be appointed. 24. H.S.Channegowda, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Government, preferred a writ petition in WP No. 8887 of 2003. This court, vide order dated 03.04.2007, disposed of the writ petition permitting Channegowda to submit a consolidated and detailed representation to the State Government through the College Authorities within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Further, directed the State Government to receive the same, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 25. In the light of the observation made in the order, the State Government issued an endorsement on 15.07.2008 as per Annexure-E in WP No.28129 of 2023, wherein, the State Government has passed an order on the said representations stating that there is no sanctioned post of Library Assistant in the institution in which Channegowda was working from 01.03.2001 onwards, as such Channegowda has not worked against a sanctioned vacant post of Library Assistant for a period of 10 years to be considered for regularisation as per the Umadevi's case. 26. The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement dated 21.03.2006 and 15.07.2008 filed appeal in E.A.T.No.1 of 2008 and also on order of oral termination. 26. The petitioner aggrieved by the endorsement dated 21.03.2006 and 15.07.2008 filed appeal in E.A.T.No.1 of 2008 and also on order of oral termination. The Tribunal, vide order dated 27.05.2011, allowed the appeal with costs and the respondents were directed to approve the proposal sent by the management in 2003, insofar as Channegowda is concerned, and provide all monetary benefits from the date on which the proposal was sent by the management in 2003 to the Commissioner for collegiate Education, the Director of collegiate Education and the Joint Director of collegiate Education, though he was in service, and directed the management to reinstate Channegowda with immediate effect. 27. The commissioner, the director and the joint director of Collegiate education, aggrieved by the judgment passed in judgment dated 27.05.2011 by the appellate tribunal preferred a writ petition in WP No. 13701 of 2012. This court, vide order dated 06.09.2012 allowed the writ petition in part, and quashed the judgment passed in E.A.T.No.1 of 2008 dated 27.05.2011 and directed the Educational Appellate Tribunal only to confine its consideration regarding the removal of Channegowda and that in case of his removal is bad, it can pass consequential order. 28. The learned Education Appellate Tribunal again vide judgment dated 30.06.2015 dismissed the appeal filed by Channegowda. H.S.Channegowda, aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.06.2015 passed in E.A.T.No.1 of 2008 preferred the writ petition in WP No. 53159 of 2015. This Court by Order dated 31.10.2018, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appointment of the Channegowda was not approved. 29. Further, H.S. Channegowda, aggrieved by the order passed by this court in WP No. 53159 of 2015, preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.627/2019 and the said writ appeal came to be disposed of, reserving a liberty to file review petition. Later on, Review Petition was filed in R.P.No.542/2019, which was allowed restoring the Writ Petition. The writ petition was restored and this court, vide order dated 02.03.2020 allowed the writ petition and quashed the judgment passed by the Tribunal vide order dated 06.09.2012, and directed the Appellate tribunal shall complete mandatory inquiry and pass appropriate order. After remand, the Educational Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment dated 23.04.2021, dismissed the appeal filed by H.S.Channegowda. 30. H.S. Channegowda , aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.04.2021 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, preferred a writ petition in WP No. 12391 of 2021. After remand, the Educational Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment dated 23.04.2021, dismissed the appeal filed by H.S.Channegowda. 30. H.S. Channegowda , aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.04.2021 passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, preferred a writ petition in WP No. 12391 of 2021. This Court vide order dated 23.1.2023 allowed the writ petition, and quashed the order passed by the Tribunal, and restored the proceedings in E.A.T No.1 of 2008, and directed for reconsideration and framed a question "Whether the petitioner proves that his removal from employment by respondent No.4 (therein) as an assistant Librarian is contrary to law and he is entitled for reinstatement in the light of the management's case that the petitioner has been discontinued from a temporary employment in accordance with law" and also directed the tribunal to consider the question in the light of the management's alternative contention that the petitioner has abandoned his temporary employment. 31. After remand, the tribunal vide judgment dated 21.04.2023 allowed the appeal and directed the management to reinstate H.S. Channegowda, and held that removal H.S. Channegowda from employment as an Assistant Librarian is contrary to law. 32. The management aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.04.2023 filed this writ petition in W.P.No.28129/2023 and Channegowda has preferred W.P in W.P.No.21985/2025 being aggrieved by the order of tribunal declining to grant back wages. 33. H.S. Channegowda got examined himself as PW.1 and he has deposed that he had worked in the college for more than 10 to 11 years, and he was denied from attending service. He has also produced documents marked as Exhibit P1 to P41. Though H.S. Channegowda has submitted a representation for regularisation, the said representation was forwarded by the management, however the government has rejected the proposal sent by the management. 34. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed by the management by issuing the appointment order vide Annexure-A dated 27.04.1993. Though the appointment of H.S. Channegowda was temporary, he has been continued in service. Though representations were submitted to the management for recommending regularisation, the recommendation of the management was not considered by the Government. 35. Admittedly, the management has appointed H.S. Channegowda without following the due procedure. The management has terminated Channegowda from service without adhering to principles of natural justice. The management has not issued any charge memo and, no inquiry was conducted and thereby terminated Channegowda. 35. Admittedly, the management has appointed H.S. Channegowda without following the due procedure. The management has terminated Channegowda from service without adhering to principles of natural justice. The management has not issued any charge memo and, no inquiry was conducted and thereby terminated Channegowda. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. G.B.Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology, Chandari and others in SLP(C) No.8788-8789 of 2023 disposed of on 16.04.2024 in 2024 INSC 309 , laid down the ratio that termination of service of an employee without holding disciplinary enquiry violates principles of natural justice, and the Hon’ble Apex Court directed for the immediate reinstatement of the employee. In the case on hand, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the order of termination is in violation of principle of natural justice. The management examined one witness as RW.1, who has reiterated the statement of objections averments in the examination-in-chief. 36. Though, the learned counsel for the management submitted that H.S. Channegowda has abandoned the service, in the earlier round of writ petition in WP No. 53159 of 2015, the management has filed a statement of objections. Wherein the management has not taken a contention in the statement of objections therein, Channegowda has abandoned the service. It is only contended that he has himself chosen not to abstain himself. The management has not taken a specific defence in the statement of objections filed in WP No.53159 of 2015, stating that H.S. Channegowda has abandoned from service. Such a contention was not taken in the earlier round of litigation. The management is estopped to take a new ground in the present writ petition. 37. The tribunal considering that the order passed by the management regarding the termination is illegal, and it violates the principle of natural justice, was justified in passing the impugned judgment, and has rightly directed the management to reinstate Channegowda, and insofar as back wages is concerned, Channegowda contended that he was illegally terminated from service without holding any enquiry. 38. From the perusal of the records, it is clear that Channegowda has not raised any grounds in the appeal memo that he was not gainfully employed from the date of termination of service till filing an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. He has also not led any evidence to show that he was not gainfully employed. 39. 38. From the perusal of the records, it is clear that Channegowda has not raised any grounds in the appeal memo that he was not gainfully employed from the date of termination of service till filing an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal. He has also not led any evidence to show that he was not gainfully employed. 39. Further, in the examination-in-chief of PW.1, he has not deposed that he was not gainfully employed from the date of termination of service till the date of filing of the appeal. In view of the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and others Vs. Krishan Pal Singh reported in (2021)19 SCC 277 it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if an order of punishment is set aside, the employee is not entitled for back wages automatically. The Hon’ble Apex Court, also in the case of Rajsthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Phool Chand represented by LRs. reported in AIR 2018 SC 4534 held that a workman has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service. It is the discretion of the Court. 40. As observed above, H.S. Channegowda has not produced any records to show that he was not gainfully employed. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, the Tribunal has rightly declined to grant back wages to Channegowda. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. 41. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The writ petitions are dismissed. In view of disposal of the main petitions, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of accordingly.