ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.— These two writ petitions are by persons who are working as teachers in schools run by the first respondent Karnataka Power Corporation, who manages such school for the benefit of children of its employees, who are working in different locations of the units of the corporation or offices of the corporation. 2. The grievance of the petitioners essentially is that they are not recognized and given due status as teachers; that their pay scales and service conditions are not commensurate with that of teachers elsewhere, particularly in the state government, where teachers are treated on par with junior engineers/ staff nurse in the sense, the pay scales of junior engineer/ staff nurse in the government services are comparable to teachers; that the corporation while at one breath claims that teachers in the employment of its schools are also on par with teachers working in the government schools but on the other is not providing same pay scales or service benefits with that of the government teachers; that the corporation is also discriminating between the teachers working in various schools who form a class by themselves vis-a-vis other employees of the corporation, who are even lower ranked than the petitioners and are classified as workmen, but are provided not only promotional opportunities to the managerial cadre but also certain career advancement increments/promotions if such persons have stagnated in the same post for a number of years; that such benefits are not extended to the petitioners; that the petitioners in this regard had given several representations and the respondent-corporation having not acceded to such request etc, had approached this Court by filing WP No 32580-84 of 2002 and 40472 and 42279-314 of 2002, wherein this Court had directed the employer to consider the request of the petitioner for the improvement of the service conditions and also to provide better pay scales, time bound increment etc., but the respondent-corporation having rejected all such requests in terms of the order dated 14-7-2003 [Annexure-M] and the petitioners being left high and dry they are compelled to approach this Court for relief seeking issue of writ of certiorari for quashing this order dated 14-7-2003 and also for a writ of mandamus as under a) to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners, for fixation of pay scale of Rs. 5885-13935 as fixed in the equivalent cadres like Junior engineers/staff nurse/security officers and to treat them on par with these categories in the matter of service benefits and also in the matter of fixation of scale from the date they are entitled to in accordance with law including all consequential monetary and service benefits flowing therefrom. b) to direct the respondents to modify/withdraw or pass fresh orders as the case may be, in the matter of promotional policy now effected in pursuance to the scheme/settlement dt. 20-11-2000 vide Ann.J by giving promotion to the petitioners as senior assistant teachers grade-I by fixing the pay scale of Rs. 6910-14335 and bringing them under the corporate cadre by passing appropriate and suitable orders. c) to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of head master in the scale of Rs. 6910-14335 on the basis of their seniority and eligibility. 3. Respondents have entered appearance and have filed their statements of objections. Writ petition averments are denied. 4. I have heard Sri Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Somashekar, learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. What is essentially urged by Sri Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the employer has not recognized the status of the petitioners who are teachers; that it cannot treat them on par with the workman; that if the petitioners are not treated to be workmen, they should necessarily be recognized as part of the management and therefore pay scales commensurate with the employees figuring in the managerial category should be extended to the petitioners and that having not been done, a writ of mandamus as sought for should be issued. 6. It is alternatively contended that the employer has also indulged in acts of discrimination, particularly by not providing like benefits as had been extended to workmen who have bargained certain settlement with the management through their union and wherein it is provided for career advancement increments and promotions; that such benefits is expressly denied to the petitioner and therefore not providing such benefits to teachers as a class of employees in the very organization while it is extended to workmen, amounts to an act of discrimination, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. Writ jurisdiction is not one for improving the service conditions of any employee. 7. Writ jurisdiction is not one for improving the service conditions of any employee. The terms between the employer and the employee is essentially based on the contract of appointment. It may so happen that an employer if is 'state' itself, the constitution provides for certain special benefits to the employees of the state who are called civil servants and the law as developed is that though the relationship begins through a contract, thereafter it gets elevated to the status of civil servant in view of certain constitutional guarantees/right provided to the civil servants. 8. Merely because an organization which answers the description of 'state' for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution is also a state and the grievance of a person against such employer treated as 'state' can be examined in writ jurisdiction, it does not mean or amount that all the employees of a public sector organization like the respondent-corporation herein becomes civil servants or ipso facto get the constitutional benefits or privileges as extended to civil servants. Examination can only be in respect of the particular grievance on the touchstone of the contract of appointment and the terms therein and a writ petition may be entertained for this purpose. 9. For improving any service conditions which in reality amounts to rewriting the contract of service, writ petition is not the proper remedy. The high court, while exercising writ jurisdiction only examines if the existing rights of persons are violated or the action of an authority or employer like the respondents which answers the description of 'state' for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is an action which is arbitrary, whimsical or discriminatory. Therefore, while an action even if it is discriminatory can only be quashed, a writ of mandamus for improvement of service conditions can never be issued in writ jurisdiction. The prayer for mandamus though is sought for as a sequel to the quashing of the impugned order, even if the order should be quashed, it does not result in issue of any writ of mandamus as sought for. A writ of mandamus is not issued for rewriting the service conditions of any employee. A writ of mandamus can be issued only if an existing contractual/statutory right is denied to a person and not otherwise. 10. A writ of mandamus is not issued for rewriting the service conditions of any employee. A writ of mandamus can be issued only if an existing contractual/statutory right is denied to a person and not otherwise. 10. In writ jurisdiction, court does not examine the status of any employee nor declares it However hallowed, honoured or respected may be the class of teachers, it does not mean that the court will rewrite their service conditions, if it is already governed by the contract of appointment. No statutory provision has been pointed out with reference to which the impugned order at Annexure-M can be examined, though the ground of discrimination is urged in support of quashing of the order, I find the very comparison being inapt particularly for comparing the petitioners, who definitely are not same as other workmen, who though may be academically or educationally not as qualified as of the petitioners, but because of their service conditions if go up in the ladder and get better salary, that in itself cannot be construed as an act of discrimination. 11. The respondent-organization being essentially an industrial organization and comprising of large number of workmen, service conditions of the workmen employees may be improved by resorting to collective bargaining. That may be achieved by a trade union representing the workmen. High court cannot be used as a substitute for such purpose by the petitioners. There is no question of altering the service conditions of petitioners in a writ petition. 12. Another contention urged on behalf of the petitioners by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order gives an impression that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits to which other workmen are entitled to and therefore the petitioners are neither treated differently i.e. as part of managerial class and extended the benefit available to such class of employees, nor treated as part of workmen and give the benefits extended to such employees and such possibility has left the petitioners with no real remedy or relief and therefore to that extent the order required to be quashed. 13. 13. This submission is counted by Sri Somashekar, learned Counsel for the respondents pointing out that the service conditions of the employees of the corporation particularly workmen employees, is regulated by settlement entered into by the management and the representatives of the workmen and it is being implemented in accordance with the settlement and that no exception can be taken to it, though the learned Counsel for the petitioner would urge that it is not factually so. 14. It is not necessary for this Court further examine the aspect If any settlement has been entered into and as a result of an award under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, if the petitioners can claim the benefit of the same, it is open to them to workout such benefits in any other manner known to law, but not by seeking issue of a writ of certiorari or a writ of mandamus. It is for this reason writ petitions are rejected, without prejudice to the other rights and remedies of the petitioners to workout elsewhere in accordance with law.