I IN THE HIGH COU OF KPTAKA AT BANGAIRE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BIE ML JUSTICE G.C. BHARUKA WRIT PETITION NO:3696—7O3/1gg6 BETWE: 1. Keebinath Malakappa, major, Head Master. 2. Keehinath Nagashetty, major, Teacher. 3. Kallappe Gundappa, major, Aest. Teacher. 4, Shesha Vaijanath, major, A 55 t. Teacher. 5. Mallikarjuna, major, Aest. Teacher. 6. Chandr.kantha, major, Aest. Teacher. All are working in Jal. Kishan Higher Primary School, Belkuni Chaudhuri village, Aurad T aiuk, idar District. (By Sri Baeavs Prabhu S.Patil,Adv) ..Petitione I —2— 1. The 3 tate of Kaniataka by its 5 ecretary, Educatton Department, M. S. B 1.].dings, Vjdh Veedhi, Bangalore—1. 2. The Deputy Director of Public Instructions, Bidar Dist., Bidar, 3. The .Aeet. Educati.onal Officer, Bidar Range, Bisr. 4. The 0 hief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayet, Bidar District, Bidar. 5, Bharatiya ikeea Karya 5 aml.thi, urad (B), rer: by its President, Sri G.M.Sudhakar, major, t and Post:Aurad (B), Taluk:Aurad, Diet: Bjdr. (By Sri G.Papireddy, AGA for R14; 5 ri D.R.Ramacbandrsppa for R2& 4; R5 served;) ..Reepondenl . . . £his writ petition is filed under Art.clee 226 and 227 of the Cntitution of India with a prayer to direct the respondents to admit the petre. to salary grant by modifying the order dt.22.2.94 by I at Anex—G to the effect that the Jal Kishnan Higher Primary school at BeikuniOhoudhuri being a school t and etc., Thi 5 petition coming on for order this day the Court made the following: —: j S.P.3696.s3703fl6 ORDER Heard the lea, ned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Vidya learned H.r.G.P. for the respondents 2. The petitioners are emoloyees of a Private Educational institution rhc relief cHimed by them in the present writ petition pertains tn their employment. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1833 to 1836/95 and eonnected matters (Dfl 30.05..198) 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, stilt no relationship of master and servant between the government and the persons like the petitioners comes into being and therefore, the writ petitionr filed by such employees are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. sine they hay. effective, efficacious avid alternative •tatutory remedies availaMe unw 4 er th Icarnataka Act, 1°B’ (in short ‘the Act’). 3. In paragraph 12 of the judgment it has been held that As regards the locus etandi of staff working in the aforesaid edtjcattonal institutions to maintain the writ petitions, they have got the remedy of appeal under Section 94 of th 0 Education Act against an order of dismissal or removal from service or reduction in rank tinder Section 130, appeal is provided against any order passed by an officer or suthority under the Act. Section 131 provides for revision by Government either suo moto or on an appiiretion from any person Interested. SectIon 132 of the Ed’ie-ation Act provides for review by the State GovErnruent either suo moto or on an application ieeeived from any poison interested. Th€ Governm€nt is also vested with the power to give direction under Section 133 of the Said Act to make enquiry or take appropriate proceeding by the Commissioner oi Dii ector or any other officer not below the rank of District Educational Officer ani to submit report Thus, the Education Act providec. for appeal, revision and review in respect of any ci icr an I in the abenc of any order , the Dover nmc nt can be moved for issuing necssi dire tion in exicis of its power under Section 133 and the staff can avail thc said ismedies Even with iegaid to payment of salary, what is ctated abcve with rgrd to th€ teaching and non taaching staff applies the othei staff also. Without xhaustina such alternative remedy, they cannot be ptrmitted to invoke the extraordinary jur isdict ion of this Court under Article 226 of th Constitution 4. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petitions are dismissed on the giound of availability of efficacious and effective alternative remedy However , all the rights and contention of the part ies on mci it ai e kept open for being agitated before the ppropriata tatutorv authorities If so advised, t h pet i t i ri r ei 1 the c tat t e i remedy hy way of filing arpeil / r iion / appliati n as ca’e rny be under th A t withrn SIX WEEKS from toda and in thc vcnt of filing of the same the conc&rn€d authoriti will dispoE of ppliction within THREE month. from the date filing therecf If ri cuch rmcdy hat’ al adv bcen availed then th mc houl I h iispo€d of within THREE months from the date of communicati n of this order JtL. ‘DiE