Judgment :- The petitioner-was appointed as Lecturer in Malayalam in the second respondent's college in leave vacancies for the periods 9-8-1984 to 29-11-1984, 23-9-1985 to 22-11-1985 and 1-1-1986 to 26-3-1986. She was relieved from service on the expiry of each of the leave vacancies. Subsequently a permanent vacancy arose in the department of Malayalam in the year 1986. Instead of conceding the petitioner's claim for preferential treatment, the 2nd respondent advertised the post under the community quota. The petitioner herself was a candidate but another candidate was selected to the post. The appointment made by the Manager ignoring the claims of the petitioner was not approved by the University. The refusal on the part of the University to approve the appointment was challenged by the 2nd respondent Manager before this court by filing O.P. No. 6356/87. This court disposed of the said original petition by Ext. PI judgment. It is held by this court in Ext. PI judgment that the University erred in not approving the appointment of the teacher appointed by the 2nd respondent in so far as the petitioner had no statutory claim for preferential appointment as on the date on which the other teacher was appointed in the year 1986. This court came to the conclusion that the benefit of S.62(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act by virtue of which preference is conferred on thrown out hands for appointment could be claimed by the petitioner only after the said amendment came into force and not before that. There is an observation in Ext. PI judgment to the effect that the petitioner's case for appointment by virtue of the rights conferred on by her by the newly introduced S.62(2) ought to be considered by the management when the question of filling up the next vacancy of the Lecturer in Malayalam arises for consideration. Ext.PI judgment is dated 15-2-1991. The management had by that lime effected another permanent appointment in the cadre of Lecturer in Malayalam with effect from 29-6-90. In this original petition the petitioner challenges the appointment so effected in favour of the third respondent on the ground that such appointment is violative of S.62(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Malayalam in the second respondent's college. In this original petition the petitioner challenges the appointment so effected in favour of the third respondent on the ground that such appointment is violative of S.62(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in Malayalam in the second respondent's college. 2, When the original petition was taken up for hearing (he learned senior counsel Sr. M.I. Joseph appearing on behalf of the second respondent raised a preliminary objection to the effect that there is an effective alternative remedy provided under the statute and therefor the original petition is not sustainable in law. The learned counsel referred to S.59 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act which lays down as follows: - "59. Appointment of teachers in Private Colleges:-(1) Appointments to the lowest grade of teacher in each department of a private college shall be made by the educational agency by direct recruitment on the basis of merit. (2) Appointments of principals shall be made by the educational agency by promotion from among the teachers of the college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, or by direct recruitment. (3) Where the appointment of principal is made by promotion, the educational agency shall make the appointment on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. (4) Appointments to the posts, other than those referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2), shall be made by the educational agency by promotion from among the teachers of college or of all the colleges, as the case may be, on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, or, if none among them is fit for promotion, direct recruitment. (5) For making appointment under this section by direct recruitment, the post shall be advertised in such manner as may be prescribed by the Statutes. (6) The educational agency shall not abolish a course of study in a private college without the prior approval of the University. (7) Every appointment under section shall-be made by a written order of the Manager in such for as may be prescribed by Statutes, communicated to the person to be appointed, with copy to the University. (8) Every appointment under this section shall be reported to the University for approval. (9) Any person aggrieved by any appointment under this section may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. (8) Every appointment under this section shall be reported to the University for approval. (9) Any person aggrieved by any appointment under this section may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. According to the learned counsel the appointment made in favour of the third respondent is under S.59 and as per sub section (9) of S.59 any person aggrieved by any appointment will have to approach the appellate tribunal by filing an appeal and without exhausting that remedy there is no justification for invoking the jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Sri. Mathai M. Paikeday appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that aforesaid preliminary objection is to be rejected on two grounds: - i) In O.P. No. 8615/91 the petitioner herein raised a contention to the effect that the management ought to have approached the University Tribunal rather than filing the original petition before this court against the refusal of the University to approve the appointment of another teacher ignoring the claims of the petitioner but that contention was negatived by this court in Ext. PI judgment. This court did not accept the contention raised by the petitioner herein in O.P. No. 8615/91 obviously because the original petition filed by the management which culminated in Ext. PI judgment was against an order passed by the University refusing to approve the approval of a teacher. There is no provision in the University Act to challenge such an order passed by the university before the University Appellate Tribunal. Therefore this court rightly held that the remedy of the petitioner in that original petition was to approach this court and not the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore the first ground raised by Sri. Paikeday is without merit. ii) The second ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner claims a right to be appointed to the post of Lecturer in Malayalam in the second respondent's College under S.62(2) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act and not under S.59 of the said Act. According to the learned advocate, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post by virtue of S.62(2) and not because of any comparative merit which is the criteria fixed under S.59(1) for direct appointment to the post of lowest category of teachers in private Colleges. According to the learned advocate, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post by virtue of S.62(2) and not because of any comparative merit which is the criteria fixed under S.59(1) for direct appointment to the post of lowest category of teachers in private Colleges. According to the learned advocate only those initial appointments made in private colleges in the lowest cadre of teachers by selection on the basis of merit after due advertisement that would be taken in by sub section (9) of S.59 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act. According to him appointment to the post under S.62(2) stands on an entirely different footing independent of S.59andnoappellateprovisionis made in the Act in respect of appointments made under S.62(2). 4. The Mahatma Gandhi University Act is a comprehensive legislation providing for the governance of the University and the colleges affiliated to it. It lays down the general guidelines for the mode of selection and appointment of teachers in private colleges. S.59 is the general provision regarding the appointment of all teachers in private colleges. It deals with not only direct recruitment but also promotion to various cadres of teachers in private colleges. So far as direct recruitment is concerned it is confined to the lowest cadre and to the post of Principal. Other appointments to the cadres like the Head of the Departments etc. will-have to be made by promotion. Specific provisions are made in respect of all these matters in S.59 and it specifically stipulates appointment to the lowest cadre should be by direct recruitment based on merit and merit alone. Admittedly the petitioner seeks to enforce her preferential claim for appointment in a post born on the lowest cadre based on his first appointment in a leave vacancy in that cadre. She became entitled to the appointment in a leave vacancy by virtue of the selection based on merit under S.59(1) of the Act. The University Act as amended by Amendment Act 17 of 1989 gives a preferential claim to certain set of teachers who are thrown out hands. S.62(2) does not say that the thrown out hands will be automatically appointed in future vacancies. The said section lays down that preference will be given to thrown out hands in the matter of filling up future vacancies. S.62(2) does not say that the thrown out hands will be automatically appointed in future vacancies. The said section lays down that preference will be given to thrown out hands in the matter of filling up future vacancies. Thus S.62(2) is clearly indicative of the fact that it is not an independent section specifying a special mode of recruitment to any category of teachers in private colleges. S.62(2) cannot stand on its own. It is dependent on S.59. So far as the method of appointment is concerned any appointment made to any category of teachers' posts whether by direct recruitment or by promotion is covered by S.59. By sub section (9) of S.59 such appointments are made appealable to the Appellate Authority viz. the University Tribunal. As such any appointment made to any category of teachers in a private college is covered by the appellate provision contained in S.59(9) of the Act. A judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge is stipulated to be appointed as the University Tribunal to deal with matters specifically entrusted to the Tribunal under the Act. All the appointments even in respect of non teaching staffs are made appealable to the University Tribunal by virtue of S.67 of the Act. It is also pertinent to note that S.70 of the Act debars the jurisdiction Of all courts from adjudicating on any question that is to be settled, decided or dealt with by the University Tribunal under this Act. Therefore it is clear that the legislature intended all disputes relating to the matter of appointments and promotions to all cadres of teachers in private colleges to be adjudicated by a specialised forum viz. the University Tribunal. The question whether the third respondent is legally entitled to be appointed in preference to the petitioner or the preferential claim of the petitioner under S.62(2) is available to the petitioner as on the date on which the vacancy arose in respect of the post in which the appointment is made has to be decided with reference to questions of facts which are vigorously disputed. Eventhough it is open to this court in exceptional cases to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the existence of any effective alternative remedy, I am of the view that the dispute raised in this O.P. is one which should be adjudicated at the first instance by the University Tribunal. 5. Therefore the original petition is disposed of with an observation that the remedy of the petitioner lies in filing an appeal before the University Appellate Tribunal. If the petitioner files such an appeal within two weeks from today, I am sure that the University Tribunal shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, ai any rate within six months from the date of completion of service of notice in view of the fact that substantial time has already elapsed because of the pendency of the original petition before this court. It is made clear that as regards the merits of the case-this court has not made or intended to make any observation. Issue photo copy on usual terms.