1. The petitioners’ counsel is present and he submits that he is ready to submit his arguments on merits. Learned counsel for caveator respondents No.1 to 3 remained absent today also. The matter is pretty old.

2. The records disclose that right from the beginning the respondents’ counsel, on various occasions, continuously remained absent. This Court has noted the absence of the learned counsel for respondent on various occasions. Having found the above said circumstances, the case was posted for arguments on 06.03.2018. On that day a specific order was passed by this Court that if the respondents and their counsel remain absent on 09.03.2018, then the matter will be heard and disposed of on merits. On that day also the learned counsel for petitioner was ready to submit his arguments. In order to provide last opportunity to the learned counsel for respondents, the case was posted to 09.03.2018 and on that day the case was posted to 16.03.2018. On 09.03.2018 also the learned counsel for respondent remained absent. Today also they remained absent. There is no fun in further adjourning the case under the guise of providing opportunity to the respondents when the petitioners’ counsel has been consistently submitting that he is ready. Therefore, the Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioners have called in question the common order passed by the Member, Educational Appellate Tribunal and Principal District Judge, Belgaum, in E.A.T. Nos.2/009, 3/2009 and 4/2009 dated 30.06.2009 wherein the Educational Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeals declared that removal of the appellants by the respondent as illegal and the appellants are held to be in service as Lecturers on permanent and full time basis in respondent No.2 College, and also declared that the appellants are entitled for arrears of salary from 01.01.2009.

4. For the purpose of easy understanding and convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, it is just and necessary to retain the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the Appellate Tribunal. The Education Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) has entertained the appeals of the appellants on the allegation that the appellants have been working as Lecturers and they were said to have been prevented from discharging their duties by oral direction of the respondents 1 and 2 and the said non-communication of any order of removal and preventing them from discharging their duties as illegal and for declaration which has been granted by the Tribunal.

5. The appellants have also claimed that the appellants have worked with the respondent No.2 as full time lecturers with effect from 20.06.2003, 20.06.1999 and 18.07.1999 respectively till December 2008 and in fact, the respondent No.1 institution is recognized by the competent authority for the purpose of imparting education to the students. The appellants have continuously worked as permanent lecturers in the respondent No.2 College. Subsequently, the Government has taken the decision to admit the said institution, i.e., the respondent no.1, to grant in aid. In order to defeat the rights of the appellants and also to make them unlawful gain the respondents 1 and 2 in violation of the Rules and Regulations directed the appellants not to sign the muster roll and not to attend the institution and virtually prevented them from signing the muster roll and attending the institution. Therefore, attributing the attitude of the management amounting to removal or termination of the appellants from their services, the appellants have approached the Tribunal for various remedies.

6. The respondent No.2 appeared before the Tribunal and contested the proceedings by filing statement of objections. It is the main contention that the appellants never worked with the respondents 1 and 2 at any point of time. The documents produced by the appellants were all fake documents, concocted and forged for the purpose of secu