ORDER Petitioners claim to be physically handicapped persons who are all interested in seeking employment under the State Government as teachers to work in High Schools. It is the case of the petitioners that they are qualified for filing up the posts of teachers. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner's is that the State Government it appears which had initiated the process of recruitment to appoint teachers in various high schools in terms of a notification published on 25-9-2006, copy at Annexure-A to the petition, and even after the petitioners had sought for employment by making suitable applications partly seeking for appointment against the posts earmarked for physically handicapped persons at 5% of the total number of posts notified, the State Government has not given effect to this reservation in the matter of recruitment; that notwithstanding the provisions of "Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995", and the State Government having framed the rules in the recruitment rules governing appointment to the posts and having amended the same to provide 5% for reservation; that benefit of reservation has not been extended to the petitioners; that if the reservation should have been properly worked out petitioners would have got selected to the posts to which they had applied for. It appears for redressal of their grievance petitioners were also before the Commissioner for disabilities and notwithstanding a positive order passed by the Commissioner in terms of the order dated 7-2-2007, copy at Annexure-J, the State Government has dragged its feet; that the petitioners have not been provided the employment by extending the benefit of reservation and it is for issue of mandamus to compel the State Government not only to provide for reservation but also to implement the order passed by the Commissioner, the present writ petition. 3. Sri Jagadish Shastri, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners has put forth several contentions and has submitted that a writ of mandamus as sought for is essentially for the purpose of ensuring that an order passed by the Commissioner is obeyed by the State Government: that a mandamus of this nature should necessarily be issued as the State Government by its inaction has virtually violated not only the Act but also the relevant rules governing the recruitment of persons to the State Government and therefore a writ of mandamus should be issued. 4. 4. In support of this submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, passed in the case of Chandra Shekhar Sharma v Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another1. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on earlier decisions and orders of this Court to point out that such matters are entertained by this Court earlier and a mandamus was also issued to compel the State Government to give effect to the orders passed by the Commissioner. 5. If the matter should have been one of implementation of the orders by the Commissioner perhaps there could have been some merit in this petition but I find that the main grievance of the petitioner is something other than non-implementation of the policy of reservation in favour of disabled persons in the matter of providing employment but one of not providing employment by the State, particularly in consonance with the notification and the recruitment rules governing such appointment. Complaint is essentially one of non-adherence to the rules and relevant notifications governing the recruitment of the post of teachers. 6. Such matters are all matters involving the grievance of persons seeking employment in the State Government. These are all matters which can be investigated only by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and not in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is immaterial whether the petitioners were earlier before the Commissioner for the orders or elsewhere, but that will not alter the legal position insofar as the jurisdiction of this Court is concerned regarding entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to redress the grievance of persons about the disputes involving employment under the State Government. 7. Such matters are only to be taken up before the Administrative Tribunal in the first instance and if at all a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be entertained thereafter by this Court and not a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for this reason I am not inclined to examine this petition. 8. It is open to the petitioners to avail of the remedies as is available to them in law. Reserving such liberty this petition is dismissed.