1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.106 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 960 OF 2009 Punjababa Govardhane Vidyavikas & Anr. .... Petitioners. V/s Govind Pundlik Jadhav and anr. .... Respondents. Mr. M.M. Sathaye for petitioners. Mr. Anilkumar Patil for respondent No.1. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. This review petition has been filed seeking modification of the order dated 26/06/2009 passed by this Court whereby Writ Petition filed by petitioners herein was dismissed. 2. Respondent No.1 had filed an appeal against the order of termination before the School Tribunal, Nashik. The 2 said appeal was allowed by Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Nashik by order dated 09/09/2008 and the order of termination was set aside and direction was given to petitioners herein to reinstate respondent No.1 on the post of Assistant Teacher with 50% back-wages alongwith consequential benefits. Petitioners challenged the said order by filing the said Writ Petition. Petition was heard and by judgment and order dated 26/06/2009, the said Writ Petition was dismissed. 3. In this review petition, it is now contended that petitioners came to know that respondent No.1 was doing business as LIC Agent from 2008 till date and that they came to know recently that respondent No.1, during pendency of his appeal in School Tribunal as well as his Writ Petition No.9037 of 2005 and the present Petition, was working as Teacher in Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Taloshi and, therefore, petitioners are in search of further and better details of the said employment. Secondly, it is contended that the last person employed by petitioner No.2 was S.C. candidate who was appointed on 15/07/2003 after respondent No.1’s services were terminated. It is further contended that his appointment has been approved unconditionally by respondent No.2 and, therefore, there is no vacancy in the School for reinstatement of respondent No.1. 3 4. In my view, no ground is made out by petitioners for review of the order dated 26/06/2009. The burden of establishing that respondent No.1 was gainfully employed is on petitioners. As it is, School Tribunal has only awarded 50% back-wages to respondent No.1. Though no stay was granted by this Court to the order of the School Tribunal, petitioners have not yet reinstated respondent No.1 for the last almost more than one year. Hence, it appears that this review petition is filed only for the purpose of delaying the process of reinstatement and payment of back-wages to respondent No.1. Hence, review petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE, J.)