An appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, is maintainable against removal or termination of an employee even in the absence of a formal written order, as management cannot defeat statutory appeal rights by abstaining from issuing or communicating a written document.

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN IN MA (EAT) NO.1/2019 DATED 11.02.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition filed by the appellate in MA (EAT) No.1/2019, is directed against the impugned order dated 11.02.2020 passed on IA No.II by the Principal District and Session Judge, Hassan, whereby the said application filed by respondent No.2 / Institution under Section 151 CPC was allowed by the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as not maintainable.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The respondents having been served with notice of this petition have chosen to remain unrepresented and have not contested the petition.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was the appellant before the Tribunal in MA(EAT) No.1/2019, which was filed by him under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, (for short, 'the said Act of 1983'), aggrieved by his deemed termination/removal and for reinstatement to the same post held by him and for other reliefs.

4. In the said appeal, the respondents herein were arrayed as respondents and apart from contesting the appeal on merits, the respondents also took up the contention that the appeal was not maintainable and filed the instant application IA No.II seeking dismissal of the appeal. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application IA No.II and consequently, dismissing the appeal as not maintainable on the ground that there was no express order in writing, removing, dismissing or reducing the rank of the petitioner, which was capable of being challenged by way of an appeal under Section 94 of the said Act of 1983. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, petitioner is before this court by way of the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and submit that for the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 94 challenging the removal, dismissal or reduction in rank of an employee of a Private Educational Institution, it is not necessary that there has to be a Written/Express order in writing and as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ' N. Dasegoda v. Secretary Dr.Ambedkar Education Society '¹ILR 2010 KAR 19, which has not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order, and as such, the same deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. In the said judgment, it is held as under:

"JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge who has set aside the order of the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal, Tumkur, which had directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant in service as a Hindi Teacher forthwith and to pay consequential monetary benefits.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to before the Educational Appellate Tribunal.

3. Respondent is an educational society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act which is running Dr. Ambedkar Education Society at Yenjalagere, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District. The appellant