( 1 ) THE petitioner was working as head master in the 3rd respondent- dharmaprakash higher primary school, basavakalyan. The said school is run by 2nd respondent-management and has been admitted to grantin-aid by the government of karnataka. By an order dated 25-7-1996 (Annexure-H), the management of the school has put the petitioner under suspension, pending disciplinary enquiry.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid order (Annexure-H) was subjected to an appeal before the Karnataka educational appellate tribunal (in short, 'the tribunal'), which now owes its existence under Section 96 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (in short, 'the Education Act'), which has come into force with effect from 1-6-1995.

( 3 ) THE said appeal filed before the tribunal was numbered as eat No. 27 of 1998. The tribunal dismissed the appeal by its order dated 19-2-1998 (Annexure-L), on the ground of limitation. It has also rejected the la. Filed by the petitioner for a direction to the management to pay subsistence allowance on the ground that it is a separate cause of action and therefore an independent appeal ought to have been filed for the said purpose. The order of tribunal clearly shows that it has not applied its mind to the merits of the case either with regard to the suspension or non-payment of subsistence allowance.

( 4 ) NOW, Sri P. S. Rajagopal the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after coming into force of Education Act, no appeal was maintainable before the tribunal against the order of suspension pending enquiry, rather only a revision against such order could lay under Section 131 of the Education Act. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order passed by the tribunal be quashed setting liberty to the petitioner to prefer his statutory right of revision under the aforesaid Provisions.

( 5 ) I have heard Mrs. V. Vidya, learned high court government pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 4, as well on the said aspect.

( 6 ) ORIGINALLY, the Karnataka educational. appellate tribunal was constituted under Section 10 of the Karnataka private educational institutions (discipline and control) Act, 1975 (in short, 1975 act' ). Under Section 8 of the said Act, right was conferred on any employee aggrieved by an order of the board of management of a private educational institution to prefer an appeal before the tribunal.

( 7 ) RECENTLY, the full bench of this court in the case of st. Joseph's Higher Primary School v Smt. J. Rose mary and others, has held that under the Provisions of 1975 act not only an employee whose services are terminated or penalty is imposed can file appeal but an employee whose service conditions are otherwise affected to his prejudice can also file an appeal before the tribunal.

( 8 ) THE said interpretation was given keeping in view the language used in sections 7 and 8 of the 1975 act. Now after coming into force of the Education Act, from 1-6-1995, by virtue of Section 146 (1) thereof, 1975 act stood repealed. Sub-section (1) to Section 146 of the Education Act, reads as under:"the Karnataka compulsory primary Education Act, 1961 (karnataka act 9 of 1961) and the Karnataka private educational institutions (discipline and control) Act, 1975 (karnataka act 10 of 1975) are hereby repealed".

( 9 ) THEREFORE, on and from 1-6-1995 the tribunal can exercise only such jurisdiction as has been saved under the Education Act. Section 94 of the Education Act, reads as under:"appeals. (1) any teacher or other employee of a private educational institution who is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank may within three months from the date of communication of the order prefer an appeal to the tribunal".

( 10 ) THEREFORE, a bare reading of the above Provisions clearly shows that any teacher or other employee of a private educational institution can prefer an appeal to the tribunal only when dismissed, removed or reduced in rank within the prescribed time and no appeal can be ente