M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing an interlocutory order made by the Educational appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is Mysore Riyasat hindu Prachar Samithi which is a society registered under the Societies registration Act. Respondent No. 1 was a peon on the establishment of the Hindi Prachar Samithi. By an order made on 8-7-1980 he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the said order respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal under S. 8 of the Karnataka private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975, before the Educational Appellate tribunal. Bangalore. On 18-8-80 the tribunal made an order staying the operation of the order of dismissal pending disposal of the appeal Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has presented this petition. ( 3 ) SRI K. Lanshminarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised the following contentions; (1) The petitioner is not a private educational Institution as defined under S. 2 (d) of the Act and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; (2) As respondent No. 1 was employed as a peon he was not an employee as defined under S. 2 (b) of the Act and on this ground also the appeal was not maintainable; (3) As it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that Respondent No. 1 had been relieved of his duties immediately after the passing of the dismissal order and another person was also appointed in his place, the tribunal could not stay the operation oi the; order of dismissal as it had already been, given effect to. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the function of the petitioner-society wag only to propagate Hindi and they are not running any regular educational institution as such and they only engage services of a few part-time Hindi Pracharks and conduct Hindi classes and therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered as a private educational institution as defined in S. 2 (d) of the Act. In view of the plea put forward by the petitioner that* it was not a private educational institution and the facts stated, the question as to whether the petitioner is a Private Educational institution is a mixed question of fact and law and it cannot be decided without recording evidence. In view of the plea put forward by the petitioner that* it was not a private educational institution and the facts stated, the question as to whether the petitioner is a Private Educational institution is a mixed question of fact and law and it cannot be decided without recording evidence. If on evidence it is found that the petitioner is running educational institution and respondent No. 1 was employed in connection with the activities of the said Institution, then only the pror visions of the Act would be attracted. Therefore, this question has got to be decided by the Educational Appellate tribunal after recording evidence. ( 5 ) AS far as the second contention is concerned I do not find any substance, the definition of the word Employee given in S. 2 (b) of the Act is clear and unambiguous. According to, the definition employee means a. person employed by a private educational institution either as a teacher or in any other capacity. Therefore, if a person was employed by an educational institution, whether in a teaching capacity or in a non-teaching post, the provisions of the Act would be attracted. Hence, I reject the second contention. ( 6 ) AS regards the third contention of the petitioner, in my opinion, the petitioner is right in contending that on the facts of this case the Tribunal could not have stayed the operation of the dismissal o/rder as the order had already been given effect to and another person had already been appointed in his place. It was, however, submitted by Sri G. Dayananda, learned counsel for the 1st respondent that as the, Tribunal has issued the stay order, after noticing that the petitioner had been relieved, the order amounts to an order directing interim re-instatement of the 1st respondent into service and therefore should be obeyed by the petitioner. I am unable to agree, as the tribunal has no power to direct interim reinstatement. S. 10 (4) (b) of the act. which is relevant, reads:"10, TRIBUNAL.- (4) The Educational Appellate tribunal shall,- (b) have the power to stay the operation of the order appealed against on such terms as it may think fit;"the power conferred o,n the tribunal is only to stay the operation of an order appealed against. S. 10 (4) (b) of the act. which is relevant, reads:"10, TRIBUNAL.- (4) The Educational Appellate tribunal shall,- (b) have the power to stay the operation of the order appealed against on such terms as it may think fit;"the power conferred o,n the tribunal is only to stay the operation of an order appealed against. Therefore in a case where the order appealed against is an order of removal or dismissal from service, the tribunal has the power to stay the order if the order was not given effect to before the passing of the order. The power to grant stay does not include the power to grant any other type of interim order, as the law laid down by a Full bench of this court in Ningamma v. State of Karnataka W. A. No,. 789/79 dd 6-2-1980) interpreting section 55 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue act 1964. Therefore the stay order has not the effect of reinstatement. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the 1st respondent next submitted that the petitioner is insisting the 1st respondent to vacate the residential quarters which he was occupying while he was in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent will not be forced to vacate the premises till the disposal of the appeal. He also further submitted that if any amount is found to be due to the petitioner prior to the dismissal, that amount will be paid to the 1st respondent. In these circumstances, I make the following order: (1) Rule made absolute. (2) The order dated 18-8-1980 (Annexure-A) is quashed. (3) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously after recording evidence and a finding as to whether, the petitioner is a private Educational Institution and the 1st respondent was employed in such educational institution. --- *** --- .