The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of following prescribed procedure for appointment, the requirement of essential qualification for teachers, and the applicability of judgments related to appointment procedures and qualifications.

1. These petitioners by Management are directed against the judgments rendered on 21-9-2000 by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nagpur, allowing appeals of respondents No.2 in each of the three petitions.

2. The petitioner-Society started a School on no-grant basis in 1991 and the School was provided grant-in-aid by the State Government from 1996. Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.399 of 2001 Sunildatta, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, was appointed as Assistant Teacher from 1-7- 1992 in a vacancy meant for that category. He was untrained graduate and completed his Vacation B.Ed. Course in summer of 1995, i.e. after his termination on 30-4-1994. Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.418 of 2001 Dileshwari was appointed as untrained Teacher since the beginning of the School. The first appointment order dated 5-7-1991 was from 8-7-1991 till the end of 1991-92 session. She belongs to OBC category. She too claims to have completed Vacation B.Ed. Course, but by June 1996, i.e. after her termination on 30-4-1994. Respondent No.2 in Writ petition No.419 of 2001 Prahlad too was appointed as untrained teacher with effect from 2-7-1990(?). He belongs to OBC category and claims to have completed Vacation B.Ed. Course in July 1994, i.e. after his termination on 30-4-1994.

3. These respondents claimed that they were appointed on clear and permanent vacancies, had been deputed by the Management for completing B.Ed. and were, therefore entitled to continuation. The petitioner terminated services of respondent No.2 in these petitions with effect from 30-4-1994 by giving one month's notice on 31-3-1994. The petitioner claimed that the respondents were appointed on year-to-year basis and had not been deputed for B.Ed. Vacation Course by Management and that their services came to an end on expiry of term of appeal.

4. The parties also had a dispute on the question of payment of salary to them. There seems to be some dispute in the Management and three members of Managing Committee, who intervened before the Tribunal, claimed that Secretary P.G. Katre had effected termination of these teachers without there being any resolution by the Management. After termination of respondents No.2 in these petitions, the group in Management led by Shri P.D. Katre appointed three teachers, who have been joined as respondent Nos.5 to 7 in these petitions.

5. The learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, held, after considering material before him, that the termination of respondents No.2 in these petitions by notices dated 31-3-1994 was not legal, proper or valid and, therefore, by his impugned judgments ordered their reinstatement with continuity of service. Aggrieved thereby, the Management has filed these petitions.

6. While admitting the petitions on 3-12-2001, it was stated that though the management had not reinstated respondents No.2 pursuant to orders of the School Tribunal, the Head Master (respondent No.4 in these petitions) had illegally reinstated them. Since they had been reinstated, stay was granted only for payment of past emoluments.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents No.2 in these petitions were untrained and, therefore, not qualified for appointment. Their appointments were made without following prescribed procedure only till the end of academic session and that too by Secretary of the Society and not by Head Master, and that their appointments were not approved by the Education Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the order of the Tribunal would have the effect of disturbing services of three others, who have the requisite qualification and have been appointed after following proper procedure. He submitted that they had not been made parties to the appeals before the Tribunal.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent-teachers submitted that there was no question of joining three other teachers, who we