IN THE HIGH OQUIT OF URLATAKA AT BANGAIRE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OP JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HOig’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.Q. BHARUKA WRIT PITION NO: 14303/1996 BETWE: Sri Prabalad achsr7a Bindecharys Umari, sb Sri Bindacharys Umarji, aged about 51 years, Vidya ardhnka 5 amithi tti High School, aetti Viflage, Athanj. Talk, Belgauza District. (By Sri B.arjnivaga Gowda, Aclv) ..Petitioiaer AND; 1. The Coissioner for Public Instructions Kaitaka atate, New Public Office, Bangalore_la 2. The eputy Director of PuDlic Instructions, Belgaurn District, Belgaum. 3. Vidyavardhaka smithi Satti, Satti. Village, Athani Taluk, Belgaurn istrict. Rep by its Secretary. —2— 4 idya ardhakn Samitbi 5 atti High School, atti Village, thani Taluk, Qlgaum District. 1 ep by its in—charge I 1 ead Master. 5. Sri N.k.Ayaith, major Father’ s name not own to the petitioner, Aøt Peacber/In charge Head Master, idya ardhaka Samithi High School, Satti village, Athani aluk, Belgaum District. (By 5 ri G.Papi Reddy, AGA for lii & 2; Sri M.H.Detar for to 5;) .R.eponde!r • . • Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Oontittion of India with a prayer to direct the Ri to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for i:romotion to the poet of Head Master in the R4 Institution with effect from 31.3.94 the date of which the said poet became cant on account of the retirement of Sri 5.B.JO 8 b and etc., This petition ccing on for orders this day the Oourt made the following: ORDER.. —: I : W.P.Me •14303/96 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrm. V. Vidya, learned H.r..G..P. for the respondents 1 The petitioner is an emoloyee of s Private Educational inetitution The relie.f claimed by him in the pvsent writ petition pertains to his employment. The Divirion Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1833 to 1836/95 and connected matters (DD 30.05.1998) has held that even if the private educational institution has been admitted to grant—in-aid under the provisions of the Grant-in—Aid Code by the State government, still no relationship of master and servant between the government and the person like the petitioner come° into being and therefore, the writ petition filed by euch n employee i not maintainable under Article 216 of the Constitution of India rince he hn effer’tive, efficaciouc and alternatie etatutory remedie.’ available undet the karnitaka Education Act, 1983 (in hort ‘thb Act’) 4. In pavagraph 12 of the judgment it has been held that .— “As regards the locus standi of staff working in the aforesaid educational institutions to maintain the writ petitlon. they have got the remedy nf appeal under Sect ion 94 of the Educatior. Act against an order of dismissal oi removal from service or reduction in rank Under Section 130. appeal is provided against any order passed by an officer or authority under the Act. Section 1’31 providee for revirion by Government either suo moto oi on an application from any person tntei astod SectIon 132 of the rducst ion Act pvovide% for review by tha Stite Roveinment eithsr suo moto xr on an, application rtceived from any person interested The Government is also vested with th€ power to give direction under Section 133 oF the Said cct to make enquiry or take appropriate rroceding b th Coirmi 1ore Dirtor or an 7 other officer pot below the rank of District Educational Officer and ta ubmit report Thus the Education Act provides for anpnil , revision end review ii renpect of any order and in the ahnence of any ord r • the Cover rmert an be moved for issuing necessary direction in exercise of its power under Section 133 and the staff can avail th€ said remedies. Even with rcgayd to payment of salary, what is stated abov with regard to the teachpg and nonteahing tff app1fe th other staff also. tJithout exhausting such alternative remedy, they cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution contentions of the parties on merits are kept. open for being agitated before the apprpr iat cttutory authoritien If so advised, the petitioner may avail hi statutory remedy by way of filing appeal / revision / application an the case may he under the Act within SlY 1$FEKS from today and in the event of filing of the same, the concerned authorities will dipooe of such appeal / revision / application within THREE months from the date filing thereof. If any such remedy has already been avaed. then tte same should be dasponed of witorn THREE monthe from the date of communication of this order sat 4. For the aforenaid rearons thc writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious and effective alternative remedy. However, all the rights and