In a written decision issued today, they said it was not in the public interest given the boys’ “disgraceful behaviour” and the “relatively insignificant nature” of Mr Barile’s physical response.

Speaking after hearing the appeal had been rejected Edinburgh today, Mr Barile (52) said it was a “hollow victory” which would at least benefit other teachers who found themselves in a similar situation.

“I’m absolutely gutted,” he said. “It should never have come to court, and I have maintained that line from day one. How could it possibly be in the public interest? It has become a `technical’ assault.

“It is a hollow victory. One thing that will come out of it is that other teachers probably won’t have to go through what I have gone through.

“The judges have made it very clear that what happened was not for the criminal courts. It should have been a matter between employer and employee.”

Mr Barile lost his job with Dundee education department after he was convicted of two assault charges involving pupils.

He was found guilty after trial of assaulting a boy by grabbing hold of the front of his shirt and threatening him, and assaulting another boy by placing his arm across the boy’s chest to prevent him leaving the classroom.

The decisions were greeted with a storm of public protest in light of the provocation Mr Barile has suffered, and the teacher launched a legal bid to clear his name.

Mr Barile said today the blame for his fate lay with “hostile” parents, inexperienced education department staff and prosecutors — not the children involved.

He said he regretted not giving evidence at the sheriff court trial, but had believed with his legal team that they were “ahead” in the case.

“I was never ever going to go back to teaching,” he continued. “I have become so disgusted by what is going on in education and the people running it.

“I honestly don’t blame the kids. The kids have been the same throughout — the good and the bad and the ugly. The people I blame are the parents, education officials and the whole legal process which, once it has been started, has been like a runaway train.”

He added, “I have given instructions to my solicitor to seek an absolute discharge, which is in the process of taking place.”

If he can persuade the Appeal Court to reduce his sentence to an absolute discharge, Mr Barile will be able to keep his job with a charity linked to Dundee United.

At the trial, Sheriff Macnair heard a boy, who was then 14, was disrupting a lesson at the school and told Mr Barile, “Your breath stinks.”

When the teacher was writing a note about the bad behaviour, the boy grabbed the paper from his desk. Mr Barile grabbed the boy’s shirt, pushed him back a couple of paces and threatened, “I’ll put you through the blackboard.”

Another incident happened in another class when a second 14-year-old swore at the teacher and gave him further verbal abuse. Mr Barile told him to stay behind after class and pinned him against a wall by putting an arm across his chest when the boy tried to walk out.

The appeal case was considered to have a role in determining the level of force, if any, a teacher can legally use to control unruly pupils in classrooms, and the circumstances in which force could be considered justified.

Since the introduction of the Standards in Schools (Scotland) Act in 2000, which outlawed all forms of corporal punishment, the legislation has not been tested in the higher courts.

Counsel for Mr Barile argued that the legislation did not exclude the use of a reasonable degree of force where circum- stances justified it.

The Appeal Court judges, headed by Lord Kingarth, noted in their decision that it was not argued before them that “what was done was done for the purposes of punishing the pupils concerned”.

As a result, the section of the Act which deals with corporal punishment could not be said to have any relevance in the case.

The judges wrote that the sheriff considered all the charges before him — three other charges of assaulting pupils were found either not guilty or not proven — on the basis that, at common law, a teacher had the same powers as a parent.

While a teacher could not justify the use of physical force for punishment, “reasonable and moderate” force could be used to control the movement of a child.

The judges wrote, “The precise limits of any such power of control were not fully explored before us and we have not ourselves found it necessary to attempt any such delineation in the circumstances of the present case.”

The appeal argued that the sheriff had not properly considered whether the Crown had proved Mr Barile had assaulted the pupils rather than, in particular, used reasonable and moderate force for the purpose of maintaining discipline.

Refusing the appeal, the judges said they did not agree with that contention, and added that the sheriff was “driven to conclude that what was done could not reasonably be justified, the appellant’s actions thus falling to be regarded as assaults on the pupils concerned.”

He was entitled, based on evidence such as Mr Barile’s spoken words in one assault case and the pinning of a child against the wall with a forearm in the other, to take the view that the teacher’s actions “could be regarded simply as acts of aggression borne of frustration and/or anger”.

But they added, “Given the extreme provocation which he faced in the form of the complainers’ disgraceful behaviour and given the relatively insignificant nature of his physical response, it is, on the face of it, difficult to understand why it was thought to be in the public interest, looking at the offences of which he was convicted alone, to bring criminal proceedings at all, whatever actions others might have wished to take.”