( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted.

( 2 ) HEARD counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) IN the instant case, the respondent was appointed as Homoeopathic Medical Officer and he was issued a notice dated December 13, 1977 informing that his services would be terminated with effect from January 31, 1978. The respondent chose to challenge the order of termination by filing an OA in 1992. The Tribunal by order dated November 23, 1995 directed that a representation be filed with the State Government. The said representation was filed and the same was rejected. The respondent again approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal purporting to follow orders which had granted relief to other claimants allowed the OA and directed the appellant herein to appoint the respondent as a Homoeopathic Medical Officer with retrospective effect with all service benefits.

( 4 ) IN our opinion, there were two fundamental errors in that relief being granted to the respondent. Firstly, the services of the respondent were terminated with effect from January 31, 1978 and the respondent did not approach the Tribunal within the period of limitation provided by the statute. On this ground alone, the tribunal should not have enterta