IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT.AKA AT BANGAIORE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY 0? JUNE 1998 BEFORE ThE HON’BLE MR.JUSTIOE G.C. BHMUKA WRIT PETITIOi N0:11214—17/199 B1TEEN: 1. Smt.D.MeeraBa, aged about 46 years, w/o Vezikateahulu Naidu, working ag Aeat.,Mistrees, Sri Ramakriehna English Primary 3chool, Ulgoor, Bangalore—08. 2. Smt, R. ladr.ni, aged about 55 years, w/o T.K.Kotirndaram, working aa Asst.,istrege, Sri Ramakrjsbna English Primary School, Ulsoor, Bangalore—08. 3. Smt.Ramani B, aged about 59 years, w/o £.Padmanabbsn, nat 571, 17th Czse, Indiranagar, 3rd Stage, Bsnga1ore38. 4. Smt.B.Redha ai, aged about 48 years, w/o Hiralal, working as A 58 t. Mistress, Sri Raasknisbna glish Primary School, Ulsoor, Bangalore—08. (By 5 ni. N.S.árini.vasan, Adv) •Jetitioners —2- AND: 1. State of Karnataka, by its Oommiesioner for Education (Primary and Middle Schools), idhana Soudha, Bangalore. 2. Deputy Djrecr of Public Instructions, Bangalore aouth aluk, Kalasipalyam, Baagalore—2. (By Sri G.Papi R.ddy, 4GA) ..Reepondents . . . Writ Petition i filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash .Annex.G dt.19.8.97 and ccsequently direct the respondents to compute and pay to the petitioners the entire arrears of advance increment that have accrued to them in pursuance of Azuaex.A with effect from 1 • 1 .97 and etc., hie petition coming on for prly. hg. this day the Court made the following: ORDER... —: 1 :— A LP.11214—11217/9 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Vidya, learned H.C.G.P. for the respondents 2. The petitioners are employees of a Private Educational institution. The relief claimed by them in the present writ petition pertains to their employment. The Division Bench of this Court in (‘l.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 persons like the petitioners comes into being and therefore, the writ petitions filed by such employees are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since they have effective; efficacious and alternative statutory remedies available under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (in short ‘the Act’). 3. In paragraph 12 of the judgment it has been held that . - As regards the locus standi of staff working in the aforesaid eddcational institutions to maintain the writ petitions, they have got the remedy of appeal under Section 94 of the Education Act against an order of dismissal or 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 131 provides for revision by Government either suo moto or on an application from any person interested. Section 132 of the Education Act provides for review by the State Government either sun moto or 0 on an application received from any person intrest€d The Government is also vested with the Z power to give direction under cection 133 of the 8 Said Act to make enquiry or take appropriate proceeding by the Commissioner or Director or any other officer not below the rank of District Fducational Offier and to submit report Thuc, the Educat ion Act provides for appeal • revision and review in respect of ny or1i’ nd in the ahsenne of any order • the Government can be moved for issuing nenessary direction in exercise of its power under Sect ion 133 and t he staff can eve i 1 the said remedies. Even with regard te payment of salary, what is stated above with regard to the 0 teaching and nontcaching staff applies the other staff also Without exhaustinq such alternative remedy, they cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 22 of the Constitution. 0t 4. Foi the aforesaid reasons the writ petitions are dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious and effective alternative remedy. However, all the rights and contentions of the partie on merits are kept open for being agitated before the appropriate statutory authorities, If so advised, the octitioners ma’ :)aj1 their statutory remedy by way of filing appeal / revision / application as case may be under the Act within WEEKS f cm today and in the event of filing of the same, the concerned auhoritics will dispose of such appeal / revision / application within THREE months from the date filing thereof If any such remedy has already been availed, then the same should he disposed of within THREE months from the date of communiation of this order. sal jsk/ -