( 1 ) THE petitioner (The Malnad Education Society, Chickmagalur) has challenged in this writ petition the order made by the Educational appellate Tribunal, Chickmagalur in case No. Edn. A. 1 of 1973 d. 30th Jany 75. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT 2 was the head-master in the school run by the petitioner. By order d/. 3rd July 1973 he was dismissed from service. Respt 2 challenged the said order of dismissal in appeal before the Joint Director of Public Instructions, Mysore, who by his order d/. 27th Octr 1973 set aside the order made by the Board of Management dismissing Respt 2 from service. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of the Joint director of Public Instructions to the Director of Public Instructions under the relevant provisions of the Grant-in-Aid Code. During the pendency of the said appeal Respt 2 requested the petitioner to reinstate him in service as per the order of the Joint Director of Public Instructions, particularly in view of the fact that the management has not been able to secure an order of stay from the Director of Public Instructions. The management did not reinstate Respt 2 in service and it appears to have informed so to respt 2 by its letter d/. 7th Novr 1973. It is in these circumstances that respt 2 preferred an appeal to the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Chickmagalur, under Sec. 6 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the management raised several objections in regard to the maintainability of the appeal of respondent 2. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal overruled those objections holding that the appeal is maintainable and that it has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and directed that the appeal be set down for hearing. It is the said order that is challenged by the petitioner under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constn in this writ petitiion. ( 4 ) SRI Kalasa Shamanna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding that the appeal preferred by Respt 2 is maintainable and that it has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. ( 5 ) SEC. 4 of the Act provides for termination of service and procedure for imposing penalties. ( 5 ) SEC. 4 of the Act provides for termination of service and procedure for imposing penalties. Sub-sec (1) of S. 4 provides that there shall not be any termination of service of an employee except in accordance with the conditions of service governing him. Sub-sec (2) of S. 4 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Management when it proposes to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank its employees. Sub-sec (3) of S. 4 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Management for imposing any penalty other than dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. S. 5 of the Act provides that every order of the Board of Management terminating the services of an employee or imposing penalty or otherwise affecting his conditions of service to his prejudice, shall be communicated in writing to the employee. S. 6 providss that any employee aggrieved by an order of the Board of management may within three months from the date of communication of the order appeal against such order to the Educational Appellate Tribunal constituted under Sec. 7. ( 6 ) THOUGH S. 6 of the Act provides that any employee aggrieved by an order of the Board of Management is entitled to prefer an appeal to the tribunal, it is clear having regard to the scheme of the Act particularly the provisions of Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act, that it is only the order made by the Board of Management imposing a penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank on its employee or otherwise affecting his conditions of service to his prejudice, that can be appealed against under that section. The jurisdiction, which has been conferred on the Tribunal is not original jurisidction but appellate jurisdiction. The order which can be appealed against under S. 6 is an order which the Management is required to make in writing and communicate the same as provided under S. 5 of the Act. It is only when an order in writing is made and communicated to its employee that the employee can challenge the same by way of an appeal under s. 6 of the Act within three months from the date of the communication of the said order. ( 7 ) IN this case in the appeal memo originally presented before the tribunal, the following reliefs were sought for by respondent 2. ( 7 ) IN this case in the appeal memo originally presented before the tribunal, the following reliefs were sought for by respondent 2. " (i) to issue appropriate direction to the 1st respondent to reinstate the appellant forthwith in obedience to the order of the Joint director of Public Instruction contained in order No. A-6 9410-OPT-77/ 73-74 d/. 27-10-73, and if necessary, (ii) to set aside the order of the Management contained in memo no. 229/73-74 d/. 3-7-1973 dismissing the appellant from service as head master. (iii) to issue suitable directions to the 1st respondent to sanction and disburse the arrears of salary and all other consequential financial benefits resulting in view of rein atement; and to pass such other orders just and expedient in the circumstances of the case including the award of costs. "but during the pendency of the appeal it Is conceded that the second relief for setting aside the order of the Management d/. 3rd July 1973 dismissing respt 2 from service, was given up. Hence, the principal relief that survived for consideration in the appeal preferred by Respt 2 to the Tribunal, was for the issue of direction to the Management to reinstate Respt 2 in service in obedience to the order of the Joint Director of Public Instructions d/. 27th Octr 1973 and to accord to him all consequental benefits as prayed for in the last prayer. The prayer of Respt 2 in substance in the appeal before the Tribunal, was to enforce or to execute the order of the joint Director of Public Instructions dt. 27th Octr 1973, which was undoubtedly in favour of Respt 2 in that it set aside the order of the Management dt. 3rd July 1973. S. 6 of the Act does not entitle an aggrieved employee to seek enforcement of the orders made by the Joint Director of Public instructions or other authorities under the provisions of the Grant-in-Aid code. No machinery has been provided in the Act for executing or enforcing the orders passed by the authorities functioning under the Grant-in- aid Code. The relief claimed by Respt 2 in the appeal for enforcing the order of the Joint Director of Public Instructions, dose not fall within the scope of S. 6 of the Act, and therefore, the appeal filed by him was clearly not maintainable. The relief claimed by Respt 2 in the appeal for enforcing the order of the Joint Director of Public Instructions, dose not fall within the scope of S. 6 of the Act, and therefore, the appeal filed by him was clearly not maintainable. ( 8 ) ALL that the Management has dene in this case is to inform Respt 2 that it will not give effect to the order of the Joint Director of Public Instructions as it has challenged that order in appeal before the Drector of public Instructions. It was submitted by both sides that the appeal is still pending before the Director of Public Instructions. After the appeal is disposed of by the Director of Public Instructions, if Respt 2 feels aggrieved by the order that may be made by the Director of Public Instructions, it is open tc him to take such steps as are available to him in accordance with law to challenge the said order or to seek other relief that he may be entitled to. ( 9 ) AS I have come to the conclusiion that the appeal filed by Respt 2 before the Tribunal was not competent, the impugned order has to be set aside. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Chickamagalur in Case No. Edn A 1 of 1973 dt. 30th Jany 1975 (Ext. A) is quashed and the appeal of Respt 2 is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. --- *** --- .