IN THE HIGH COTTRT OF KARNATAIC? AT BANGS LORF DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY O JUNE 1998 BE FORE THE HON’BLE MR.JtTICE G.C.BHiRUKA W TI4 No.5638 OF 1995 BETW’EN: Sri Eshwar, s/o 5 idd appa Murk aen al, age 41 years, Principal, SSR Composite P.U College, Mudalagi, District Belgaii. •PETITIONER (, Srj.V.Lakshmjnarayana,v.) 1. The State of Karnataka, represented by its Secretary, Education Dept., M.S. Building, Bangalore. 2. The Director of Pre_University Board, Palace Road, Bangalore. 3. The Chairman, The Iudalgi Education Society, Mud algi, Dj strict Belgaum. 4, R.B.Gangaraddj, age major, Lecturer, S.S.R.Composite P.U. college, Mu’algi, Be1gain District. 5. S.M.K1adal, Lecturer in History, S.S.R.Cornposite Junior College, Mudelgi, elgaum. •,PESPONDENS Cy Sri G.Ppi Re8dy,?GA for R.1 & —2; Sri Ravi B.Najk,v, for R—4 & R 5; Sri M.R.Shailendra,Adv.for S, Sri N.S.Deshpande,iv.for R_3) Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order t.2.2.1995 by P—2 at Annexure_J and direct the respondent to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the College based on the recommenations sent by the Institution and for grant of such other reliefs. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: OR R -‘ 1 :— V.1.5638/95 ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the netitioner end Mrs. V. Vidya. learned HSA.P. for the resnondents 2. The petitioner is an eipplnyea of a Private Fd,.eational institutcon The relief claimed by him in the present writ petition pertains to his employment. The Division Bench of this Court in U A. No 1833 to 18’36/95 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 Contjtution of India, inne he ha effective, efficacious and alternative statutory remedies available ‘rider the Icarnatika Fdueation Act, l°81 (in qhort ‘the Act’), 3. In paragraph 12 of the judgment it ha been held that .- “As regards the locus stencil of staff workina in the aforesaid educational institutions to maintain the writ petitions, they have got the remedy of aøøeal 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 an order øassed by an officer or authority under the Act. Section 131 provides for revision by Government either suo moto or on an application from an peron interested section 132 of the Fd’icat ion Act provide for review by the state (overnment either suo moto or on an apnltcatiop received from any percon —: 2 — .4 interested. The Government is alto vested with the power to give direction under Section 133 of the Said Act to make enquiry or take appropriate proceeding by the CommLniorr or Dlaector or any other officer not below the rank of District Educational Officer and to submit report. Thus, the Education Act provides for appeal, revision and review in resøect of any order and in the absence of an order, the Gove’rT,mant can be moved for issuing neresnry direction in exerciee of its power under section ii and the •tsff can avail the said remedies F’en with regard to oayept of salary, whet is stated above with regard to the teaching anti nnq—teehJna otaff apc,11 eq the other staff also. Without echa..ting such alternative remedy. they cannot he permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution..” 4. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious and effective alternative remedy However, all the rights and contentions of the parties on merit are kent onen for being agitated before the aDc’ropriate ttatutc,rv authoritiet. Tf so advised, the oetitionei may avai’ hi statutory remedy by way of filing app.al / veviion / mpolicatinn a the case may be under the Act within cxx WFFKS from today and In the event of filing of the same, the cnn”erned muthnritiee will disposa of •uth eppeal / revi%ion / apptieation within THREE months from the date filino thereof If any •uc’h remedy ha already been availed, then the same hould be dispored of within THREE months from the date of communication of this order. JUDGE Jsk/—