R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Dharwad, on an appeal filed under Section 8 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 ('the Act' for short ).

( 2 ) FROM 1989, orders of Educational Appellate Tribunals have been challenged by filing revision petitions under Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure, having regard to the decision of a Full Bench of this court in the case of Excellent Education Society and Others v Smt. G. Shahida Begum and Others.

( 3 ) A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Excellent Education society and Others v Smt. G. Shahida Begum and Others, and connected cases had considered the question whether an order of the educational Appellate Tribunal should be challenged by filing a civil revision petition or by filing a writ petition. By order dated 16-6-1987, he held that such orders are revisable under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and therefore writ petitions to challenge such orders were not maintainable and directed the Registry to treat all such writ petitions as civil revision petitions. The said order was challenged in W. A. Nos. 1101 to 1103 of 1987. The Division Bench by order dated 5-9-1988 referred the matter to a Full Bench, having regard to the important question of law that arose for consideration. The question referred to the Full Bench was:"whether a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would lie against the order of a District Judge functioning as the Educational Appellate Tribunal under the Karnataka Private educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975?"

( 4 ) THE Full Bench after detailed consideration of the matter and reference to the relevant provisions of the Act, by order dated 30-5-1989, answered the question in the affirmative, by holding that the District judge, functioning as the Educational Appellate Tribunal, under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act does not cease to be a court subordinate to the High Court and that any order passed by him in appeal is amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 5 ) RECENTLY, the same question was considered by a learned Single judge of this Court in the case of Hungund Taluka Ranjara Vidyavard- haka Sangha v Rachappa Chanamallappa and Others. The learned single Judge, after referring to the relevant provisions of the Act, held that the Educational Appellate Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to the High Court and therefore the orders passed by such Tribunals were not amendable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the decision of the Full bench in Excellent Education Society's case, supra, was brought to his notice, the learned Single Judge held that the said decision of the Full bench was rendered per incuriam and, therefore, incorrect and not binding.

( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge held that the attention of the Full Bench was not invited to Section 8 of the Act which provides that appeals against the order of the Management shall lie to the Educational Appellate tribunal constituted under Section 10; nor to Section 10 which provided that the Educational Appellate Tribunals constituted by the state Government, by notification, shall consist of one person who is or has been a Judicial Officer not below the rank of a District Judge; nor to section 11 which barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of any matter in relation to which the Educational Appellate Tribunals were empowered by the Act, to exercise any powers; and therefore, the decision of Full Bench was rendered per incuriam and is not a binding precedent.

( 7 ) BUT the Full Bench had in fact examined the relevant provisions of the Act. The following observations of the Full Bench make this clear:"an analysis of Section 10 of the Act wou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document