ORDER Writ petition by a lecturer in an unaided private educational institution is one directed against the order passed by the State Government purporting to be in exercise of the power under Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. 2. For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, it is not necessary go to the merits of the claim of the petitioner, as it is noticed that the impugned endorsement dated 7-8-2006 issued on behalf of the first respondent is one not tenable on the face of it. 3. Petitioner having certain grievances against the second respondent-employer had invoked the provisions of Section 131 of the Act and had presented a revision petition on 6-6-2006, aggrieved by the action of the management, which had the effect of reducing the salary of the petitioner. 4. The officer acting on behalf of the State Government has issued the impugned endorsement indicating that the petitioner should have in the first instance availed of the appellate remedy before the Deputy Director and thereafter to approach the Government for relief, if any. 5. Notices had been issued to the respondents and they have entered appearance through Counsel. 6. I have heard Sri Prasanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Sheela Anish, learned Additional Government Advocate for first respondent and Sri Rajeshwar, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent and third respondent (sic). 7. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was faced with the only remedy by way of filing a revision to the Government under Section 131 of the Act; that the petitioner does not have any appellate remedy under the Act in respect of the action taken by the management. 8. What is pointed out is the misconception on the part of the first respondent that the petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 130 of the Act. It is pointed out that the appellate remedy is available to the petitioner only if he is aggrieved by an order passed by an officer or authority under the Act. It is submitted that the management is neither an officer nor an authority under the Act and therefore an appeal did not lie. 9. Sections 130 and 131 of the Act reads as under: "130. It is submitted that the management is neither an officer nor an authority under the Act and therefore an appeal did not lie. 9. Sections 130 and 131 of the Act reads as under: "130. Appeals.-Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any person or governing Council, aggrieved by an order passed by an officer or authority under this Act may within the prescribed period prefer an appeal to the prescribed Appellate Authority. 131. Revision by the State Government.-(1) The State Government may, either suo motu or on an application from any person interested, call for and examine the record of an educational institution or of any authority, officer or person in respect of any administrative or quasi-judicial decision or order, not being a proceeding in respect of which a reference to an arbitrator or an appeal to the High Court is provided, to satisfy themselves as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein, and if, in any case it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass order accordingly: Provided that the State Government shall not pass any order adversely affecting any party unless such party has had an opportunity of making a representation. (2) The State Government may stay the execution of any such decision or order pending the exercise of powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof. (3) Every application preferred under sub-section (1) shall be made within such time and in such manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed". 10. A plain reading of the provisions of Sections 130 and 131 of the Act makes it clear that the disposal of the revision petition on the premise that the appellate remedy was open to the petitioner and it was for the petitioner to invoke such remedy at the first instance proceeds on total misunderstanding of the provisions of Sections 130 and 131 of the Act. 11. Though Ms. Sheela Anish, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State made valiant efforts to defend the order of the 1st respondent, it is all in vain, as the provisions are very clear, unambiguous and therefore the endorsement at Annexure-H is the result of a total misunderstanding of these provisions. 12. 11. Though Ms. Sheela Anish, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State made valiant efforts to defend the order of the 1st respondent, it is all in vain, as the provisions are very clear, unambiguous and therefore the endorsement at Annexure-H is the result of a total misunderstanding of these provisions. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, endorsement dated 7-8-2006 at Annexure-H to the writ petition is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. The matter is remanded to the first respondent for disposal of the revision petition on merits in terms of the provisions of Section 131 of the Act. The first respondent shall dispose of the revision as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from today. 13. Rule issued and made absolute.