IN TF HIGH COURT OF K NATAKj t’T BAEG .LDRE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BE FORE THE HONBIE MR,JiTI G.C,BHiRUKA WRif 32 BETWEEN: 1. .B.Canaaraddi, s/o Basappa, age: 43 years, 0 Lecturer in S.S.R. V P.U.College, X Mudalgi, Taluk Gokek, District e1gaxn, 2, SJ4.Knda1,s/o Mudukappa, Major, Lecturer, S .6 . R Composite Pa!. College, Yudaloi, Belgaun District. •,P!TrIOERS (By Sri Suresh S.Joshi,v.) 1. Director of Pre-University Board, Pale Road, Bangalcre—1, 2. The ‘udalgi Edtation Society, Mulgi, by its Chairman Gokk Taluk, Belgeum District. . I.S.Murkatnal, Principal, SP P.U. College, MuAelgi, 0 Gokak T&uk, Belgaum Distrfct, •RESPONDEN’ (By Sri G,Papi edy,13A for -1; By Sri RYateesh Knar,i’dv.for R2, By Sri V,Lakshminarayana,Mv.for F3) Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 2 of the Constitution of India prring to quash Annexure dt.30.11,1996 and direct R—1 and 8150 R—2 to consider t case of the first petitioner and also second petitioner protrted as Principal of the SER Junior College in pre to P_3 and for grant of such other reliefs. rhese petitions coming on for orders this dr, th Court made the following: 0 RD F 1• t S•P.320.321/97 Of DEF Heard the learned coun’ In tie petitioner and Mrs. ‘.. Vidya, Jeatned H,C.fl D tur th€ respondantc The petitionerc are amr,]r.vecc of a Privatc Fcqjnn1 inctittition. The relief claimed by tham in rho pyamant writ petition pertain. to th°Ir ampliment. The Division Bench of thj Coint in 14 0 No. t8 to t83S/95 and ror.ner.ted mattu’ss (DD 10 1Q9M) hac held that ever. if the private educational institution has been admitted to g.ant-in aid tinder the provisionc of the Grant- ln-fid Code by the State government, still n iclationship at qtn and seriant between the governmcnt and th persons like the pc.titicn’is come. lntc bcing ad thtef,re, the w t pc.titicn tiled by such cni.lo e are n.,t ndlrtainable unier ifl 1” 2 F of ti C ntItutirn I mV joe ti- hay tt ti tficaci u n’ it TT i t t t ry € Ii v ii fla ‘nier U Karnat l r ior Act, 1 81 (in’ , t ti t’ n paragraph 1 f t ivi n t it ha been hcl 4’ “As regards the locus otandi ‘f staff workIng in the aforasaid educational intitutions to maint4in the writ petitions, they have got the rened’v of appeal under Sectinn 94 of the Education Art against an order ot dismissal or removal from service or redurtiop in rank tinder caction 1’30, appeal is provided against av d)rflr na°sed by an officer or authcrity tinder th Aet Sactlon 121 c,rovjdr for revision by Government either sun mntn or on an ir,pjj. t o’. From an’ prnn i,itarnqtrwi. Section Jfl nt the Fdu.atinn n-t W%$jC$bc? ‘or r view by the State Covet nri nt ithr uo moto or on an application ri ad H m any person interested. The Govet nmant i ci c o vested with t ho o power t give direction under c otion 133 of the Said ct to make ena ir ‘r tke ppropricta o proceedinp h th nommiesicn Oi(tm- er any other nfficF-r not b1’-.,i th Tank ef Gist it Fdunat ‘na I Oft car and te snhpi t r oon t Thus, the Educat inn ct prcid fc’ rnaI r cn’i jnn and vw i rscTcd’ ari cchr and in t-h ahscrce of any erder 1’ Fe Gnv’rnment can h mnvnd for issuirni rcesdrrt’tc jn et sn ‘Dt ‘S power under 5ctiOn i3a and th staff can avail thn said remedies, Fven with i ogard te o vment of o salary, what i stated alove with reoard ta he tecching and nnn’teanhing stef appl is tbn nt’h’r staff alsn. githout xhc’sting such alternative 3 remedy, they cannot be permitted o jnvokn the ext ranrdi nory jr isdict ion nf this Court under 0 Artic’ie 22e of the Const’ituticn, I 3 For the aforesaid reasn the writ netitione are drsmi’sd on the ground of availability of efficacious and O tfftii alternative rm€dy However , cii the rights rd conti nt i rs of the p t on ii r I k t pen ur 1’ ii j ittrd bf re the 3pFroFrlat t tutcry uth ritis 0 tvi d th P titi(n a f fil’ncj ipne I / r vi’ion 3 mg I th ame th 2 tF rp months f h date H i thereof, I r I i i 3 thur the uana rou d Jispnsed t r itFin fHr:CE 0 months from thc date of cmmunioetinc f his cider z I