In which Sub Court can an order passed by University Appellate Tribunal be executed? Whether it could be executed at the place where the main office of the educational agency is situate? Can it be executed before a Sub Court in whose jurisdiction the educational agency has a private college? Whether the order is to be executed only before the Sub Court within whose jurisdiction the particular private college where the respondent worked at the time when the jurisdiction of the University Appellate Tribunal was invoked. These are the interesting questions to be settled in this petition.

2. The factual matrix is as follows:- Respondent was Junior Superintendent of M.E.S. College, Kodungallur. He was subsequently transferred to M.E.S. College, Mampad. Respondent approached the University Appellate Tribunal alleging that he was unlawfully kept out of duty and claimed salary for that period. He also claimed seniority over another employee who was promoted as Junior Superintendent. University Appellate Tribunal granted an order in favour of respondent finding that he is entitled to be posted as Junior Superintendent with effect from 9.2.70. He was granted monetary benefit for the period he was kept out of duty for no fault of his by the Corporate management. The order was challenged before this court. The matter was finally decided by this court in C.R.P.Nos.895/79, 1272/79 and 2060/81 on 22.8.85. This court directed the management to pay to the respondent all monetary benefit for the period he was kept out of office. It was also directed to post respondent as Junior Superintendent forthwith. Respondent filed E.P.130/02 before Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode against the management for realization of the monetary benefits by arrest and detention and also by attachment and sale of the properties of the petitioner management. Executing court originally passed an order overruling the contention of the petitioner that Sub Court, Kozhikode is not competent to execute the order. That order was challenged before this Court in W.P. (C) 37781/03. As per Ext.P1 judgment dated 27.6.06, this court set aside the order of the executing court and directed the executing court to consider the question of want of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner, in accordance with law. Before this court respondent had contended that petitioner did not challenge the jurisdiction of the executing court to execute the order and thereby respondent waived that plea. This court did not decide that question and instead directed the executing court to decide that question also. Thereafter as per Ext.P2 order dated 11.9.06, executing court found that the petitioner did not dispute the jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity and thereby waived the defence based on jurisdiction. The executing court also found that the executive office of the petitioner management is situated within the jurisdiction of Sub Court, Kozhikode and therefore under section 60 (8) of Calicut University Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), order of University Appellate Tribunal could be executed before that court. Ext.P2 order is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The argument of learned counsel appearing for petitioner was that under sub section 8 of Section 60 of Calicut University Act, an order passed by University Appellate Tribunal could be executed only in that Sub Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the private college is situate and it is to be executed as if it were a decree passed by that Sub Court and therefore only that Sub Court, within whose jurisdiction the private college is situate alone has jurisdiction to execute the order. It was argued that petitioner did not work within Kozhikode District and therefore Sub Court, Kozhikode has no jurisdiction to execute the order at all and therefore Ext.P2 order is to be quashed. The learned counsel further argued that though Section 22 (e) of the Legal Service Auth