The Petitioners have challenged the order of the School Tribunal dated 3.10.1997. Petitioner No.1 is the Institution which runs the school of which Petitioner No.3 is the Headmaster. Petitioner No.2 is the President of Petitioner No.1. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. Respondent No.1 was appointed on 26.7.1995. The appointment order issued to him mentioned that he was appointed temporarily from 28.7.1995 to 30.4.1996. According to the petitioners, Respondent No.1 submitted his resignation, but later filed an appeal before the School Tribunal being Appeal No.7 of 1996 alleging wrongful termination from service. It was contended by Respondent No.1 that he had been appointed against a clear permanent vacancy and, therefore, ought to have been appointed as a probationer rather than a temporary employee. It was further contended that he had not resigned from service but was in fact prevented from signing the muster roll. Respondent No.1 also pleaded that his appointment was made after following the procedure of advertising the post and selecting him in accordance with law. According to Respondent No.1, his termination from service was illegal as it was eff