Aggrieved by these notices, respondent No. 2 filed the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal asserting inter alia that after the expiry of the probationary period of two years, he was confirmed by the School authorities in the post of Commerce Teacher in July. That despite sincere and hard work put in by him, his services were terminated on the basis of false and baseless charges because of ,the personal grudge/, malice which the Principal of the School bore towards him; that the plea of the School authorities that he was not academically qualified was incorrect: that the Manager and the Principal who were fully cognizant of clause 18 of Chapter 4 of the Central Board of Secondary Education Hand Book having issued the letter of appointment and subsequently that of confirmation, were estoppel from pleading that he was not qualified to teach the higher classes; that the said clause could at the most be construed to imply that be was not qualified to teach higher classes but the same could not be made a ground for terminating his services and that after completion of three years of teaching experience in the School, the disqualification, if any had disappeared. It Was further pleaded by respondent No. 2 that his services could not be terminated without the prior approval of the Director of Education as provided by sub-section 2 of section 8 of the Act and without following the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. On these pleas, respondent No. 2 sought annulment of the aforesaid notices dated August 8, 1975 and September 8. 1975 and a declaration that he continued to be in the service of the School. The Manager and the Principal of the School contested the appeal con- tending inter alia that since the School was neither an aided one nor bad been recognized by the appropriate authority, the Act and the rule framed thereunder were not applicable to it and consequently the appeal was incompetent and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the same; that the appeal was even otherwise incompetent as the impugned order did not impose any of the penalties of dismissal