Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the University Appellate Tribunal deciding the question of appointment of a Senior Superintendent in one of the colleges under the corporate management of the 2nd respondent, in favour of the 1st respondent herein. The Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by the said respondent against the order of the corporate management, appointing the revision-petitioner in the said post. It is unnecessary to detail the service history, or the grounds in support of the respective claims of the petitioner and the 1st respondent to the appointment for the post of the Senior Superintendent, in view of the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the 1st respondent herein that this revision petition is not maintainable. It was pointed out that the revision petition purported to have been filed under S.61 (b) read with S.63 of the Kerala University Act, 1974, which came into force on 19-8-1974. S.61 (b) and 63 of the Act read as follows: "61. Past disputes relating to service conditions of teachers.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in any contract, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, xx (b) any dispute between the management of a private college and any teacher of that college relating to the conditions of service of such teacher, which has arisen after the 1st day of August, 1967, and has been disposed of before the commencement of this Act shall, if the management or the teacher applies to the Appellate Tribunal in that behalf within a period of thirty days from such commencement. be reopened and decided under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Statutes made thereunder as if it had not been finally disposed of. xx xx xx 63. Non-teaching staff of private colleges, The provisions of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to the non-teaching staff of the private colleges. Subject to this, their method of appointment, pay and other conditions of service shall be such as may be prescribed by the Statutes." The right of revision to the High Court is conferred by S.60 Clause.9 of the Act which is in these terms: "60. Subject to this, their method of appointment, pay and other conditions of service shall be such as may be prescribed by the Statutes." The right of revision to the High Court is conferred by S.60 Clause.9 of the Act which is in these terms: "60. Conditions of service of teachers of private colleges xx (9) Any person who objects to an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under subsection (7) may, within sixty days from the date on which a copy of such order is served on him, prefer a petition accompanied by court fee stamps of the value of ten rupees to the High Court on the ground that the Appellate Tribunal has either decided erroneously, or failed to decide, any question of law." xx And sub-section (7) reads: "(?) Any teacher aggrieved by an order passed after the commencement of this Act in any disciplinary proceeding taken against him may, within sixty days from the date on which a copy of such order is served on him or within sixty days after the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted under this Act, whichever period expires later, appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, and after such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order thereon as it may deem fit, including an order of reinstatement of the teacher concerned: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the said period if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the said period." It is on the basis of S.60 (9) that counsel for the revision-petitioner would seek to sustain this revision-petition. Counsel for the revision-petitioner has a contention that the University Act of 1974 is not applicable to the appointment in question. 2. Counsel for the respondent contended that even to examine the objection of the revision-petitioner about the applicability of the 1974 Act, this revision should be maintainable; and that, it was not. It was argued that the revision conferred by Clause.9 of S.60 of the Act is only against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under sud-clause (7). Sub-clause (7) of S.60 deals only with orders passed in disciplinary proceedings taken against a teacher, and ex-hypothesi by reason of S.63, against the members of the non-teaching staff as well. It was argued that the revision conferred by Clause.9 of S.60 of the Act is only against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under sud-clause (7). Sub-clause (7) of S.60 deals only with orders passed in disciplinary proceedings taken against a teacher, and ex-hypothesi by reason of S.63, against the members of the non-teaching staff as well. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the order in this case is not an order that concerns itself with disciplinary action and therefore would not fall within the purview of sub-clause (7) of S.60, nor, of sub-clause (9) thereto. Counsel argued that the appropriate provision under which the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal was preferred, was sub-section (10) of S.57 which reads: "57. Appointment of teachers in private colleges. (10) Any person aggrieved by any appointment under this section may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal." It was pointed out that there is no provision for filing a revision against an order of the Appellate Tribunal passed on the appeal under S.57 (10) of the Act. For that reason, it was argued that this revision petition is not maintainable. On the language of the provisions in the statute which we have extracted, we are satisfied that the preliminary objection is well-founded and must be accepted. We do so and hold the revision to be not maintainable, and dismiss the same. We make it clear that this will not preclude the revision-petitioner from pursuing, if so advised, his other remedies by way of revision petition or otherwise, if the same be open. There will be no order as to costs. Dismissed.