JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.9358 of 2010 to the extent it directs the Nagarpalika to continue the services of respondent No.1 herein on the set up of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika at the cost of the Nagarpalika.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the Letters Patent Appeal are as under :-

2.1 Respondent No.1 is a primary teacher who claims to be holding educational qualification as required under the relevant rules for recruitment as primary teacher at the relevant point of time. She was appointed on 03.05.1991 as primary teacher.

2.2 It is alleged that respondent No.1 viz. Ranjanben Jayantilal Vaidya was overaged and was still selected by the appellant herein and therefore, by letter dated 13.12.1991, the Director of Primary Education was pleased to cancel the appointment of Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 was thereafter constrained to file Special Civil Application No. 1359 of 1992 wherein the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to quash order dated 13.12.1991 after hearing the parties by order dated 17.03.1992.

2.3 Thereafter, the respondent’s case was considered by the State Government and the Education Department was pleased to pass order dated 13.10.1992 condoning the age bar of nine months in the case of respondent No.1 herein and the same was also communicated to the respondent vide order dated 20.11.1992.

2.4 It is further averred that inspite of serving for 13 years, respondent No.1 was asked to provide the documents and certificate through proper channel in respect of her appointment. Further, by communication dated 12.10.2006, respondent No.1 was asked to remain present before the Director, Primary Education with all the documents of appointment and qualification. Respondent No.1 submitted all the necessary documents. It was also brought to the notice of the respondent authority that the issue of her appointment stood concluded in the year 1996 by the Department vide order dated 10.08.1996.

2.5 To the shock and surprise of respondent No.1, by communication dated 27.07.2010, without any notice or opportunity of hearing, the State Government terminated the services of respondent No.1 after a period of 20 years. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 preferred Special Civil Application No. 9358 of 2010 praying for the following reliefs : -

“(A) To quash the order/communication dated 27/7/2010 passed by the respondent no.1 at ANNEXURE-A and any action in pursuance to the same by the respondents.

(B) During the pendency admission and final disposal of the petition stay the operation and implementation of illegal order/communication dated 27/7/2010 passed by the respondent no.1 at

ANNEXURE-A.

(C) To grant cost of this petition.

(D) To grant such other and further relief/s that is just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2.6 After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge by common judgment and order dated 03.10.2016 in Special Civil Application Nos. 9358 to 9364 of 2010 was pleased to allow the Special Civil Applications and set aside the order of termination. By the said order, it was held as follows :-

“14. Thus it can be noticed that after 7 years of appointment, action of termination was not permitted. In the instant case, action is taken after 20 years after the respondent being aware of the illegalities/irregularities in the appointment. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, in absence of satisfactory explanation with regard to delayed action, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

15. However, the prayer by the petitioners for declaration that they are regularly appointed teachers appears to be misconceived in law. The petitioners who lacked the requisite qualifications on the date of advertisement were not entitled to be even considered for interview. They were illegally obliged as discussed in detail hereinabove. Therefore, at the inception of their se