S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

1. This intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order in W.P. No. 102172/2015 dated 15.9.2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has confirmed the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Dharwad in M.A.(EAT) No. 4/2012 dated 12.1.2015. The first appellant is an Educational Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The second appellant is a unit of the first appellant-society and the third appellant is an Engineering College established by appellant Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The respondent was appointed as Assistant Librarian by appellant No. 1 in the year 1999 in the third appellant-College. She was terminated from service by an order dated 21.2.2013. The respondent challenged the said order before the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Educational Appellate Tribunal, Dharwad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.A.(EAT) No. 4/2012. Appellants resisted the appeal contending inter alia that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the said contention stood rejected by order dated 12.1.2015. Upon challenge, the order of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge leading to filing of this appeal.

3. Sri S.S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short 'the Education Act'). The matter pertains to service conditions of the employees of the 3rd appellant, which are governed by the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short 'the AICTE Act'). The Education Act excludes from its purview the colleges and institutions governed by the AICTE Act. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in entertaining the appeal. Alternatively, it is argued that the 3rd appellant is a minority educational institution. Section 94 of the Education Act is inapplicable in respect of minority institutions as it interferes with the right of the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.

4. On the other hand, Sri. Ananth P. Savadi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the grievances of the respondent can be redressed only under the provisions of the Education Act. AICTE Act has a limited application. Subjects which fall within the domain of AICTE Act include qualification of teachers, their pay scales, student teacher ratio, infrastructure in technical institution and such other subjects enumerated in the AICTE Act. At any rate, the AICTE Act does not contain any provision for resolution of the disputes between employees and the management of institutions in relation to disciplinary action such as dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, etc. Therefore, the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 94 of the Education Act is maintainable. It is further argued that the Education Act equally applies even in cases of minority institutions as it regulates the service conditions of its employees. The Education Act does not interfere with the over all administration and control of the management and over the staff. The Education Act does not take away the independence of the institution in any manner. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the appellants that minority institutions are insulated from application of Education Act is misconceived. With these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Having regard to the contentions urged, the first question which falls for our consideration is, whether the Education Act excludes the colleges and institutions governed under the provisions of the AICTE Act?

6. As noticed above, the respondent has challenged the order of termination passed by the appellants by filing an appeal under