: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2806 OF 2010 The Secretary / Chairman, T.J. Education Society & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. Dashrath Rajaram Sargar & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Owen Menezes i/b. C.K. Thomas & Associates for the Petitioners. Mr. H.G. Wakshe for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 9 TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: 1. The petitioners have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 10th March, 2010, passed by the Additional School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai, in Appeal No.3 of 2010, whereby the respondent No.1’s termination from services on 17th February, 2007 has been set aside. The petitioners have been directed to reinstate the respondent No.1 on the post of ‘Shikshan Sevak’ from the date of termination of his services with continuity of service and back wages. : 2 : 2. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No.1 was appointed as a part time teacher and, therefore, the question of reinstating him as a ‘Shikshan Sevak’ does not arise. It has also been argued that the respondent No.1 subjected himself to an interview for the post of ‘Assistant Teacher’ and, therefore, he cannot challenge his termination from service. 3. The School Tribunal has, in my opinion, rightly reinstated the respondent No.1. Undisputedly the respondent No.1 was appointed as a part time teacher and his work with the petitioners continued from 27th January, 2006. A Government Resolution has been issued indicating that part time teachers who are employed in a School and who have been found eligible should be made full time teachers if a vacancy for a full time teacher arises. Without considering this aspect, the petitioner-School issued advertisement for the post of ‘Assistant Teacher’ and terminated the services of respondent No.1. : 3 : 4. The School Tribunal has committed no error by quashing the order of termination of service of respondent No.1 dated 17th February, 2007 and further directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent No.1 as a ‘Shikshan Sevak’. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No.1 is not entitled to back wages as he has not proved that he was not gainfully employed after his services were terminated. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jotiram Narayan Chechar vs. President, Panchganga Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur & Ors., reported in 2008 (5) Mh.L.J. In the present case the respondent No.1 has pleaded that he was not gainfully employed and has thus discharged his burden. The petitioners on the other hand have not placed on record any material to show otherwise. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the impugned order encroaches on the petitioners right to administer a minority : 4 : educational institution; a right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. This issue has not been raised before the School Tribunal. Whether the petitioners are a minority educational institution or not is question of fact which must be established before the School Tribunal and not for the first time before this Court under Article 227. 7. The Writ Petition is rejected.