JUDGMENT D.B. Bhosale, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in a writ petition filed by the appellant, questioning maintainability of the proceedings, before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal, instituted by the respondent challenging his termination as a Lecturer in the college run by them. 1.1. The contention that was urged on behalf of the appellant - educational institution before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant is an institution recognised by the Indian Medical Council (I.M.C.) and amenable to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, (for short "I.M.C. Act"), and therefore, is excluded from the purview of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short "K.E. Act"). The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition by recording the following reasons- "Since, admittedly, the proceedings are pending before the Tribunal, the matter may be allowed to run its course and notwithstanding the finding of the Tribunal, that even though the institution may be amenable to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, since the Act does not provide for discipline and control of employees of the institution, it is still open for an aggrieved employee to invoke the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, as the petitioner institution is an Educational Institution, is a question that shall be left open for consideration by this Court if and when the proceedings before the Tribunal attain finality and are subjected to challenge before this Court subsequently. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of." 2. Mr. F.V. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on two grounds. Firstly, after inviting our attention to Section 2(27) and Section 2(14) of K.E. Act, he submitted that it is only schools and junior colleges are covered by the K.E. Act, and therefore, the appeal filed by respondent under Section 94 of the K.E. Act before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal is not maintainable. In other words, he submitted, the K.E. Act would not apply to the educational institutions which run colleges imparting professional education such as medical education, technical education etc. Secondly, he submitted that under clause (iv) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 the colleges and institutions which are dealt within the I.M.C. Act are excluded from the purview of K.E. Act. In other words, he submitted, the K.E. Act would not apply to the educational institutions which run colleges imparting professional education such as medical education, technical education etc. Secondly, he submitted that under clause (iv) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 the colleges and institutions which are dealt within the I.M.C. Act are excluded from the purview of K.E. Act. He submitted that admittedly the appellant - college is recognised by Indian Medical Council and is affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994 (for short "the University"), and hence the proceedings under the provisions of the K.E. Act against them are not maintainable. 3. The appellant is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. They have a medical college and hospital in homeopathy at Dharwad, established in 1996-97. The college is recognised by the Central Council of Homeopathy. It is also recognised under the I.M.C. Act. The respondent was working as a Professor in the college run by the appellant - institution. His services were terminated with effect from 28.04.2011. The respondent questioned his termination by filing an appeal under Section94 of the K.E. Act before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal, constituted under Section 96 of the said Act. Before the Tribunal, the appellant raised a preliminary objection as to its jurisdiction to hear and decide an appeal under Section 94 of the K.E. Act against the institution recognised and/or dealt within the I.M.C. Act. The Tribunal after considering the relevant provisions of K.E. Act and I.M.C. Act and so also the judgment of this Court in B.N. VADIRAJA vs. MUMTAZ AHMED, ILR 2000 KAR 3425 held that the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 94 of the K.E. Act challenging his termination is maintainable. Against the order of Tribunal the appellant - institution filed the writ petition, which came to be disposed of with the observations quoted in paragraph No. 1.1 of this judgment. 4. At the outset, we would like to deal with the first submission advanced by Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of K.E. Act would not apply to the medical college run by the appellant - institution. In support of this contention, our attention was invited to clause (b) of Section 2(27) and Section 2(14) of the K.E. Act, which read thus- 2(27). Patil, learned counsel for the appellant that the provisions of K.E. Act would not apply to the medical college run by the appellant - institution. In support of this contention, our attention was invited to clause (b) of Section 2(27) and Section 2(14) of the K.E. Act, which read thus- 2(27). "Private Educational Institution" means any educational institution imparting education referred to in Section 3, established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons, but does not include an educational institution- (a) .................... (b) established and administered by any University established by law; (c) .................... (d) .................... 2(14) "Educational Institution" means any institution imparting education referred to in Section 3 and includes a private educational institution but does not include an institution under the direct management of the University or of the Central Government or a tutorial institution; 5. The definition of "private educational institution" means any educational institution imparting education referred to in Section 3, "established" and "administered" or "maintained" by any person or body of persons, but shall not include an educational institution - "established" and "administered" by any University established by law. The dictionary meaning of the word "administer" is "to attend to the running of affairs" or to "manage", and of the word "establish" is "to set-up on a system on permanent basis" (see DK illustrated Oxford Dictionary; reprinted 2008). 5.1. In Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Mihan Singh (Dead) Rep. by Baba Banta Singh, (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 650, the Supreme Court while considering the meaning of the word "establish" in paragraph 10 observed thus- 10. ..................... The meaning of the word 'establish' as given in the New Collins Concise Dictionary, 1983 edn., is: "1. to make secure or permanent in a certain place, condition, job etc. 2. to create or set up (an organisation etc.) as on a permanent basis." According to Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International edn.), the word 'establish' means: "1. to settle or fix firmly; make stable or permanent. 2. to set up; found, as an institution or business. 3. to set up, install (oneself or someone else) in business, a position, etc." 5.2. The Supreme Court further observed that the words "establish and administer" must be read conjunctively, and so read, it gives the right to the educational institution to administer the College established and run by them. 2. to set up; found, as an institution or business. 3. to set up, install (oneself or someone else) in business, a position, etc." 5.2. The Supreme Court further observed that the words "establish and administer" must be read conjunctively, and so read, it gives the right to the educational institution to administer the College established and run by them. Having regard to the observations made by the Supreme Court, it appears to us that the word "establish" means to bring into existence and administer it. If the College is established by the educational institution it cannot, either be administered or managed by any other authority, such as the University or for that matter, the Indian Medical Council. In other words, unless a College or an institution is established by the University or the Indian Medical Council, the question of "administering" or "managing" the affairs of such College or such institution by them would not arise. 6. Mr. Patil vehemently contended that the appellant's college is covered by clause (b) of Section 2(27) which excludes application of the K.E. Act to the colleges like the one run by the appellant - institution and affiliated to the University. In short, it was submitted that the appellant-educational institution, since is "affiliated and recognised" by the University and the I.M.C., the provisions of K.E. Act would not apply. Similar contention was raised after inviting our attention to the definition of "Educational institution" as defined by sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the K.E. Act. The definition of expression "educational institution", would show that it means any institution imparting education referred to in Section 3 and includes a private educational institution but does not include an institution under the direct management of the University or of the Central Government or a tutorial institution. Mr. Patil on the basis of this provision submitted that in view of the expression "direct management of the University", the appellant - educational institution is not covered by K.E. Act. 7. We are unable to agree with the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant for more than one reasons. Clause (b) of sub-section (27) of Section 2 of K.E. Act clearly states that private educational institution does not include an educational institution "established and administered by any University established by law". The appellant - educational institution is neither established nor administered by the University. Clause (b) of sub-section (27) of Section 2 of K.E. Act clearly states that private educational institution does not include an educational institution "established and administered by any University established by law". The appellant - educational institution is neither established nor administered by the University. It is only affiliated to the University. Similarly it is not under direct management of the university. The appellant, therefore, is a private educational institution imparting education referred to in Section 3, not established and administered by any University or I.M.C. As a matter of fact it is not in dispute that the University does not have any control over the management of the appellant - institution nor is it established or administered or maintained by the University and that it is only affiliated to the University. In the circumstances, the first submission must be rejected. 8. Further, we would like to consider the submission of Mr. Patil that the K.E. Act covers only schools or at the most junior colleges and not the colleges which impart professional education such as medical education, technical education, commerce education etc. The provisions contained in Section 2(27) and Section 2(14) make reference to imparting of education referred to in Section 3. This Section states that the State Government may, subject to sub-section (3) of Section 1, regulate general education, professional education, medical education, technical education, commerce education and special education at all levels in accordance with the provisions of this Act. In view of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the Act would not apply to the educational institutions, like the petitioner - institution. There are several other provisions including sections 1(3),2(16), 2(20) in the K.E. Act, which indicate that it would cover/apply to all educational institutions, such as the petitioner - institution. Hence, this ground of challenge also must be rejected. 9. That takes us to consider the next submission based on sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the K.E. Act. There are several other provisions including sections 1(3),2(16), 2(20) in the K.E. Act, which indicate that it would cover/apply to all educational institutions, such as the petitioner - institution. Hence, this ground of challenge also must be rejected. 9. That takes us to consider the next submission based on sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the K.E. Act. It would be relevant to reproduce the said provision for better appreciation of the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant- "Section 1(3) - It applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State except- (i) institutions for scientific or technical education financed by the Central Government, and declared by Parliament by law to be institutions of national importance; (ii) institutions of higher education which shall be deemed to be University as declared by the Central Government by a notification, under section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Central Act III of 1956); (iii) institutions established or maintained and administered by or affiliated to or recognised by the University of Agricultural Sciences insofar as the matter pertaining to them are dealt within the University of Agricultural Sciences Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act 22 of 1963); [(iiia) Educational Institutions affiliated to or recognised by the Council of Indian School Certificate Examination or Central Board of Secondary Education respectively;] (iv) in so far as the matters pertaining to colleges and institutions are dealt within,- (a) the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Central Act, CII of 1956); (b) the Dentists Act, 1948 (Central Act XVI of 1948); (c) the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (Central Act VIII of 1948); (d) the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 28 of 1976); [(d-a) the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (Central Act 52 of 1987); (d-b) the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985 (Central Act 50 of 1985); (d-c) the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (Central Act 73 of 1993);] (e) the Karnataka Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners' Registration and Medical Practitioners' Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 9 of 1962); and (f) the Karnataka Homoeopathic Practitioners Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1961); (v) such other class or classes of institutions, subject to such conditions and to such extent as the State Government may, by notification, specify: Provided that nothing in Chapter III, section 35 of Chapter V, Chapter VII and Chapters IX to XV (both inclusive) except sections 57 and 58 of Chapter X shall be applicable to commerce institutions. 10. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of K.E. Act, states that 'it' applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State except the institutions mentioned in clauses (i) to (v). Insofar as clause (iv) is concerned, that excludes, from application of the K.E. Act, the colleges and institutions which are "dealt within" the provisions of the Acts mentioned therein. Having regard to this provision, insofar as the appellant is concerned, the K.E. Act would not apply to it in respect of the matters "dealt within" the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Central Act C11 of 1956). In other words, the K.E. Act would not apply to the colleges and institutions insofar as matters "dealt within" the Acts referred to in clause (iv)(a) to (f) of Section 1(3). That would, in our opinion, also mean that the matters which are "not dealt within" the Acts referred to in clause (iv)(a) - (f) of Section 1(3) are covered by the K.E. Act. We have carefully seen the provisions contained in the Indian Medical Council Act. It does not provide for discipline and control of employees of the institutions. It provides for reconstitution of Medical Council of India, the maintenance of a medical register for India and for matters connected therewith. We did not find a single provision in this Act which provides for discipline and control of the employees of any institution or dealing with service conditions of the employees in such institution which is approved/recognised by the Indian Medical Council. The I.M.C. Act provides for constitution and composition of Council, mode of its election, election of the President, office of President and members of the Council, its functioning, recognition of the medical qualifications, permission to establish medical colleges, new course studies, recognition of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in countries etc. In other words, the I.M.C. Act does not contain a single provision, which directly or indirectly deals with the service conditions of employees or provide remedies, if a disciplinary action is taken against them by the institutions/private educational institutions, recognised under the same Act. Since there is no specific provision under the I.M.C. Act providing a remedy for an employee of the private educational institutions such as the appellant against whom the action of termination is taken by the Management, in our opinion, the provisions of K.E. Act are applicable. Since there is no specific provision under the I.M.C. Act providing a remedy for an employee of the private educational institutions such as the appellant against whom the action of termination is taken by the Management, in our opinion, the provisions of K.E. Act are applicable. The Tribunal has rightly observed in the order to hold that it has a jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the appellant challenging his termination. 11. At this stage we would like to make reference to the judgments of this Court relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed heavy reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Judge in A.M. Shivalinge Gowda v. Shri Adhichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust (R), Shri Adhichunchanagiri Kshetra, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District and Another, 2010 (2) Kar. L.J. 374. In this case, he submitted, a similar issue was raised. We have carefully perused the judgment. It appears that a disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner and on examination of records and after affording an opportunity of hearing he was terminated from service. The order of termination was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of K.E. Act. The Tribunal, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. That order was challenged in writ petition. In the petition, on behalf of the employer it was contended that respondent - hospital run by them is not an educational institution and hence the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the appeal filed by the petitioner, who was appointed as Pharmacist in the second respondent - hospital. It was also contended that the second respondent is recognised by Medical Council of India and that being so, the respondent institution stood excluded from the Karnataka Education Act. There the learned Judge in paragraph 9 while dealing with the question whether the writ petition was maintainable against the respondent, relied upon the other judgments of this Court in Vidyavardhaka Sangha, Bijapur and Another v. S.K. Joshi and Others, 2005 (5) Kar. L.J. 402 and in Tejaswini Patil v. Bangalore University and Others, 1991 (1) Kar. There the learned Judge in paragraph 9 while dealing with the question whether the writ petition was maintainable against the respondent, relied upon the other judgments of this Court in Vidyavardhaka Sangha, Bijapur and Another v. S.K. Joshi and Others, 2005 (5) Kar. L.J. 402 and in Tejaswini Patil v. Bangalore University and Others, 1991 (1) Kar. L.J. 556, held that the writ was maintainable against an institution such as the respondent and then the learned Judge observed that having due regard to the law laid down by this Court as well as in case of Vidyavardhaka Sangha, and the case law cited therein, the fact remains that the respondent - institution in which the petitioner was working was a hospital and he was working as a Pharmacist and hence the question of Education Act applying insofar as above decision cited by the petitioner is concerned, is not acceptable. In paragraph 12 and 13 it is held thus- "12. The argument of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was a Diploma holder from a Medical College, which was recognised by the Medical Council of India and the very establishment of the hospital as a part of the college was for the purpose of imparting medical knowledge and therefore to construe the hospital as distinguished from Medical College would be a travesty of justice, since it is clearly part and parcel of the Medical College. It is contended that therefore the Education Act was clearly applicable. 13. This argument which is submitted in an unusually raised tone by the Counsel does not appeal to this Court and the case law and the judgment cited would be applicable in respect of an educational institution and it cannot be said that the same would apply to the respondent herein. Hence, the order dated 10.09.2009 is recalled. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of this Court in B.N. Vadiraja v. Mumtaz Ahmed, 2000 - ILR (Kar) - 0 - 3425. In that case the petitioner, who was appointed as a Senior Tutor in the Department of Pharmacology, A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur was terminated and the order of termination was challenged before the Educational Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the K.E. Act. In that case the petitioner, who was appointed as a Senior Tutor in the Department of Pharmacology, A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur was terminated and the order of termination was challenged before the Educational Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the K.E. Act. It was contended on behalf of the educational institution that the A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur is affiliated to Karnataka University, Dharwad and the one under the provisions of Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in view of Section 1(3)(iv)(d) of the K.E. Act. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal was not maintainable, as the College is affiliated to Karnataka University governed under the provisions of Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976, as such the provisions of K.E. Act are not applicable. This Court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner - employee challenging the order of Appellate Tribunal, held that the provisions of the K.E. Act are applicable in respect of the employees of Private Medical College affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University. It was further observed that since, there is no specific provision either under the I.M.C. Act or under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 providing a remedy for an employee, against whom disciplinary action is taken by the Management, the provisions of K.E. Act are applicable to the employees of A1 Ameen Private Medical College being a private educational institution defined by Section 2(d) of the K.E. Act. 13. Having regard to the judgments of this Court and the provisions of K.E. Act and I.M.C. Act, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant - educational institution is amenable to the provisions of K.E. Act and that the appeal filed by the respondent before the Karnataka Educational Appellate Tribunal is maintainable. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.