S C., IN TUE HIGH COURT OP KAATAZA AT aANGALOU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAT 07 JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE RON’Bl.E KR.JUSTICE 0.0. BEARUKA WRIT PETITION SO: 1426W1996 BEW J Veerabhadrai.h, HSadi Teacher, sb Huohana, aged about 40 years, Satishohadre Maorial H1 8ohool, tolegere, Doddabaflapur Taut, Bangalore Rural District. (By 8 n We Chandrssheker Associates) . .Petition AND: 1 • The Seoretaryell, Education Dept. N. S.Bnldxug, Bangaloreel. 2. The 1 y. Director of Public Instruction, Bangelore Rural Di.rict, K.R.Uirci.e, Ba_galoreel. (By Sri G.Paps. 1 .d4, *4*) •. t esponde .. • This writ petition is filed under Insole. 226 and 227 of the Cunstz.tutzon of India with a prayer to direct the respondate to pay the salaq of the petitioner fran the date of appointsat/appz i.e., from 24.6.09 ad eta., This petition oa.ng en for orders his day the 0our made the foflowing: ORsfl.. —: 1 :— WJ.14268/96 ORDER •Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Vidya, learned H.C.G.P. for the respondents 2. The petitioner is an employee of a Private Educational. institution. The relief claimed by him in the present writ petition pertains to his employment. The Division Bench of this Court in L.J.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 comes into being and therefore, the writ petition filed by such an employee is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since he has 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 .educational 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 suo moto or on an application received from any person I intcr€ted. The Government is siso vestJ with tha power to give direc tion under Sect ion 153 f th Said ct to make enquiry or take appropriate 0 pr rh nhiri in ro Thir o o h€r ff t Lclow tF ra k f Dl tn t du a i nd )ff i r 3nd t tint er it Thu tF Eduaton ct PlC ides for inpee n ir ion and i eview in rspect ct ny ‘mdr and jn h- aIsen a of any <rdCT rn’,ernercr er Fe mood i $Und ncr ss d s I I n I e cnn c n Ifl r F t ff a av 11 t it lii vi Wi I sr I ( 3y1 a salary, wht is tatd rhc s wIth regard t tF tKn nH ncrOearhin -taff applies the ether 0 ft aire, tiithet eyhautin Fc lternativn n med t h a met he per ii it ted t c i nn k I h & r a r I r r y ji r isdi t i f t h c it jrcd r 8 Antirl )3 cf h ( itrtution 4 For the aforesaid reasons th’ writ. petiti n x dismissed on the ground of avail3hi1 ity of efficacious and affect r liter nat iv remedy However cli tF r ic ht and onten iens of the PdI tas on m rts are kept open fo 1 heirg cgitttd hfor& th aonrne iate ltarIcIei cir.hor it jn Jf sc cv a I th s r m v31l F tLt) ilfi ly w of filnq rcpel / reiaiccr / pp]j atoY as the rase rIca’ e udec the cc w a 515 tIK5 tram fjC cc rh3 cont n tn ci t 1 i r f re:ion / asH ;tion witnin idE3 months rc the date filing thpeof If any ai remedy hen alreaty Seen I 1 t i i ti r H Id b dr ‘. I I months from the date of comncunisation or this rrrdrr Sd/ JUDGE