ORDER Mohamed Anwar, J.—Heard both sides on the point of maintainability of the revision against the impugned order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal (the 'Tribunal' for short). 2. The objection regarding maintainability of the revisions was raised by Smt. B.V. Nagarathna learned Counsel for Respondent on the ground that the Tribunal is not a 'subordinate Court' for the purpose of Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure and no revision lies against any order of the Tribunal made under Karnataka Education Act, 1983 ('New Act' for short) which replaces the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (the 'Act of 1975' in short) and the Karnataka Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961' in short). 3. Identical question had arisen and has been decided by Full Bench decision of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1101, 1103 of 1987, decided on 20th May, 1989 (Excellant Educational Society and Others vs. Smt. J. Shahida Begaum and Others). Under the Act of 1975 the question which had arisen for decision of the Full Bench, on a reference made to it, was: Whether a revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure would lie against the order of District Judge functioning as an Educational Appellate Tribunal under Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')... 4. In the light of the relevant provisions of Act of 1975 and on consideration of the relevant legal aspects enunciated in the decisions of Supreme Court in The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum Vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, AIR 1977 SC 282 and reported in Chhagan Lal Vs. The Municipal Corporation, Indore, AIR 1977 SC 1555 , the full bench of this Court answered the question under reference in the affirmative. 5. The Tribunal, for the purpose of implementation of the Act of 1975, was constituted under Section 10 thereof which provision dealt with the Tribunal's composition as also its jurisdiction to entertain and disposal of the appeals filed against the orders of the management of Private Educational Institutions respecting services of their employees or imposition of penalty or otherwise affecting their service conditions (Vide Sections 6 and 7). 6. In the New Act of 1983 which replaces the Act of 1975, Section 96 relates to constitution and powers of the Educational Appellate Tribunal. 6. In the New Act of 1983 which replaces the Act of 1975, Section 96 relates to constitution and powers of the Educational Appellate Tribunal. Without going into the details of the various provisions of the Act of 1975 and the corresponding provisions of the New Act bearing on the question, suffice it to state that it is an indisputable position that no significant change as such has been brought about by the New Act in the constitution, composition and powers of the Educational Appellate Tribunal from the one which was obtainable in the Act 1975. 7. In that view of the legal position of the Tribunal under the New Act it necessarily follows that the ruling laid down in the unreported full bench decision of this Court in M/s. Excellant Educational Society and Others vs. Smt. J. Shahida Begaum and Others, supra, holds good for the Tribunal under the New Act, also. 8. Smt. Nagarathna, however made a faint attempt to challenge the correctness of that decision of the full bench invoking the aid of a latter decision of Single Bench of this Court rendered by H.N. Tilhari, J in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3487, connected with 3488, 3401 of 1998 disposed of on 18.6.1998 observing that in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and Another, AIR 1988 SC 1531 decision reported in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38 , the said ruling of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Excellant Educational Society and Others cannot be stated as a binding precedent, and, therefore, the controversy regarding the said question was required to be resolved by a larger bench. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to the order of my brother Judge K.N. Tilhari, the matter was in fact, referred to the Division Bench. But that reference came to be rejected by its order dated 16.9.1999 as needful was not done therein vide office note made in other similar Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1296 of 1999, 1664 of 1999 and 1445 of 1999 which are also listed for to-day. Therefore, the resultant position which emerges is that the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Excellant Educational Society has to be taken as a binding precedent. 1296 of 1999, 1664 of 1999 and 1445 of 1999 which are also listed for to-day. Therefore, the resultant position which emerges is that the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Excellant Educational Society has to be taken as a binding precedent. This was the verdict of this Court pronounced in another subsequent Single Bench decision in Panchaxari Shidramappa Yeligar Vs. Shiggaon Taluka Shikshana Samithi and Others, ILR (1998) KAR 3748. In that case the learned Judge held: The decision in The Hungund Taluka Ranjara Vidyavardhaka Sangha Vs. Rachappa Chanamallappa and Others, ILR (1998) KAR 3104, holding that the decision of the Full Bench in Excellant Educational Society and Three Ors. vs. Smt. J. Shahida Begum and Three Ors. Writ Appeal No. 1101, 1103 of 1987 is not binding precedent is rendered per incuriam. 9. Therefore, there cannot be any further scope for Smt. Nagarathna to re-agitate the same point of maintainability of the revision under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure from the order of Educational Appellate Tribunal. The ruling of Full Bench of this Court in the case of the Excellant Educational Society would remain a binding precedent unless and until it is disturbed by a Special Bench or by the Supreme Court on being challenged by any aggrieved party. 10. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the revision lies from the impugned order and it is maintainable. Hence the objection raised in this regard by learned Counsel for Respondent is over-ruled. 11. List after two weeks for admission.