WP/3735/2010 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3735 OF 2010 Adishakti Hindi Prachar Samiti, Thane & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Jaiprakash Kailashnath Upadhyay and Anr. .. Respondents Mr. P.J. Pawar for the Petitioners. Mr. M.S. Lagu i/b. Ms. Deepali Patil for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 13 TH AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Petitioners have approached this Court against the findings of the School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai. By the order of 9th February, 2010, the Appeal No.21-A/2009 filed by Respondent No.1 has been allowed and the order of termination dated 16th August, 2003 has been quashed and set aside. The Petitioners have been directed to reinstate the Respondent No.1 on the post of “Shikshan Sevak” from 16th August, 2003 with back-wages. WP/3735/2010 : 2 : 2. It is sought to be argued that the appointment of Respondent No.1 was only for a period of one year and, therefore, the School Tribunal did not grant reinstatement. It is submitted that the School Tribunal had done so only on the basis of a G.R. which was issued directing that the appointment of “Shikshan Sevaks” should be for three years. That G.R. was issued to the Petitioners with retrospective effect and it is only for that reason that the Respondent No.1 has claimed that he was terminated from service illegally. 3. The School Tribunal has found, as a matter of fact, that the Petitioners had continued Respondent No.1 in service in the academic year 2002-03 as well, although according to the Petitioners, the services of Respondent No.1 came to an end on account of the appointment letter indicating that the appointment was only for one year. The School Tribunal has found that the salary register and the WP/3735/2010 : 3 : muster roll produced on record were doubtful because the approval letter issued by the Education Officer, Thane Municipal Board, Thane, shows that Respondent No.1 had been appointed for the period between 30th June, 2001 to 30th April, 2004. The School Tribunal also found that Respondent No.1 collected the answer sheets of the students on 10th January, 2003. On this basis, the School Tribunal found that Respondent No.1 had been illegally terminated from service in the year 2003, although she was entitled to be continued as a “Shikshan Sevak” upto 2004 as the Education Officer had accorded such approval. 4. In my opinion, there is no error committed by the School Tribunal which requires interference of this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Writ Petition is rejected.