JUDGMENT : S. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. This intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the order in W.P. No. 102172/2015 dated 15.9.2015 whereby the learned Single Judge has confirmed the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Dharwad in M.A.(EAT) No. 4/2012 dated 12.1.2015. The first appellant is an Educational Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The second appellant is a unit of the first appellant-society and the third appellant is an Engineering College established by appellant Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The respondent was appointed as Assistant Librarian by appellant No. 1 in the year 1999 in the third appellant-College. She was terminated from service by an order dated 21.2.2013. The respondent challenged the said order before the Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Educational Appellate Tribunal, Dharwad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.A.(EAT) No. 4/2012. Appellants resisted the appeal contending inter alia that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the said contention stood rejected by order dated 12.1.2015. Upon challenge, the order of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge leading to filing of this appeal. 3. Sri S.S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short 'the Education Act'). The matter pertains to service conditions of the employees of the 3rd appellant, which are governed by the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (for short 'the AICTE Act'). The Education Act excludes from its purview the colleges and institutions governed by the AICTE Act. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in entertaining the appeal. Alternatively, it is argued that the 3rd appellant is a minority educational institution. Section 94 of the Education Act is inapplicable in respect of minority institutions as it interferes with the right of the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481 . 4. On the other hand, Sri. Ananth P. Savadi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the grievances of the respondent can be redressed only under the provisions of the Education Act. 4. On the other hand, Sri. Ananth P. Savadi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the grievances of the respondent can be redressed only under the provisions of the Education Act. AICTE Act has a limited application. Subjects which fall within the domain of AICTE Act include qualification of teachers, their pay scales, student teacher ratio, infrastructure in technical institution and such other subjects enumerated in the AICTE Act. At any rate, the AICTE Act does not contain any provision for resolution of the disputes between employees and the management of institutions in relation to disciplinary action such as dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, etc. Therefore, the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 94 of the Education Act is maintainable. It is further argued that the Education Act equally applies even in cases of minority institutions as it regulates the service conditions of its employees. The Education Act does not interfere with the over all administration and control of the management and over the staff. The Education Act does not take away the independence of the institution in any manner. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the appellants that minority institutions are insulated from application of Education Act is misconceived. With these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Having regard to the contentions urged, the first question which falls for our consideration is, whether the Education Act excludes the colleges and institutions governed under the provisions of the AICTE Act? 6. As noticed above, the respondent has challenged the order of termination passed by the appellants by filing an appeal under Section 94 of the Education Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 94 provides for filing of an appeal by any teacher or other employee of a private educational institution, who is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank. The said provision reads as under: "94. Appeals: (1) Any teacher or other employee of a private educational institution who is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank may within three months from the date of communication of the order prefer an appeal to the Tribunal." 6.1. Sub-section (14) of Section 2 defines the expression "educational institution", which 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. Sub-section (14) of Section 2 defines the expression "educational institution", which 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. 6.2 The expression "employee" is defined under sub-section (15) of Section 2 of the Act, which means a person employed in an educational institution. 6.3 Sub-section (27) of Section 2 defines "Private Educational Institution" as under: "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) established and administered or maintained by the Central Government or any local authority or any other authority designated or sponsored by the Central Government or the State Government; (b) established and administered by any University established by law; (c) giving, providing or imparting only religious instruction, but not any other instruction; or (d) imparting instruction for which there is no approved syllabi or course of studies or Government or University Education." 7. There is no dispute that the appellant/College is a private educational institution falling within the definition of sub-section (27) of Section (2) of the Education Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 states that the said Act is applicable to all the educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State of Karnataka except the institutions included in Clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. Section (1)(iv)(d-a) of the Act excludes the colleges and institutions dealt within the AICTE Act. The said provision reads as under: "1. Short title, extent, application and commencement.- (1) This Act may be called the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. (2) It extends to the whole of the State of Karnataka. (3) It applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State except- (i) to (iii-a)............................. (iv) insofar as the matters pertaining to colleges and institutions are dealt within:- (a) to (d)............................. [d-a] the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (Central Act 52 of 1987) (e)........................... (f)........................... (v)............................" 8. (3) It applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State except- (i) to (iii-a)............................. (iv) insofar as the matters pertaining to colleges and institutions are dealt within:- (a) to (d)............................. [d-a] the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (Central Act 52 of 1987) (e)........................... (f)........................... (v)............................" 8. The AICTE Act provides for laying down norms and standards for programmes, giving approval for setting up of technical institutions, prescribing guidelines for admission of students and the charging of fees, inspecting and evaluating institutions periodically with a view to maintain uniform standards. AICTE is the highest regulatory body for Technical Education in India vested with the power to accord recognition or withhold recognition in case the Technical Education Institution fails to comply with the standards laid down by the AICTE. It does not contain any provision to deal with matters concerning disciplinary action against the teaching or non-teaching staff of any colleges or institutions or to deal with the service conditions of the employees of such Technical Institutions. The Education Act does not apply to the institutions governed by the provisions of the AICTE Act, insofar as the matters which fall within exclusive domain of AICTE Act. Since the AICTE Act does not contain any provision to deal with discipline and control of the employees of colleges and institutions, all matters concerned with disciplinary action against both teaching and non-teaching staff of all education institutions are dealt only under the Education Act. 9. In a similar case, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of D. Jeevagan v. The Principal, MEI Polytechnic and Others, ILR 2007 Kar 4870, has held as under: "Learned Government Advocate incidentally raised a doubt whether the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act will apply to institutions like MEI Polytechnic, Bangalore, which is governed by the provisions of All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987. The doubt is raised in view of the provisions contained in Section 1(3)(iv)(d-a) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. According to Section 1(3)(iv)(d-a), the Act applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State of Karnataka except insofar as the matters pertaining to colleges and institutions that are dealt within the Education Act will not apply to institutions governed by the provisions of AICTE Act insofar as matters which are dealt with in the AICTE Act. According to Section 1(3)(iv)(d-a), the Act applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State of Karnataka except insofar as the matters pertaining to colleges and institutions that are dealt within the Education Act will not apply to institutions governed by the provisions of AICTE Act insofar as matters which are dealt with in the AICTE Act. It is not in dispute that the AICTE Act does not contain any provision for resolution of disputes between employees and the managements of institutions in respect of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank. Therefore, Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act is applicable to the respondent institution despite the provisions contained in the AICET Act." (emphasis supplied by us) 10. In Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha (Karnataka), represented by its Secretary, Dharwad v. Dr. A.S. Gadag, 2015 (1) KCCR 324 , a Division Bench of this Court has reiterated the legal position as under: "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 C 11 of 1956). In other words, the KE. Act would not apply to the colleges and institutions insofar as matters "dealt within" the Acts referred to in clause (iv)(a)-(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." 11. Section 94 of the Education Act is a regulatory provision providing for discipline and control of the employees of educational institutions. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 94 of the Education Act is maintainable. 12. That brings us to the second important question as to whether Section 94 of the Education Act affects the minority educational institutions to manage and conduct its affairs under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India? 13. 12. That brings us to the second important question as to whether Section 94 of the Education Act affects the minority educational institutions to manage and conduct its affairs under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India? 13. The third appellant-college is admittedly a minority educational institution. The Education Act and the Rules made thereunder cannot be made applicable to any minority educational institutions only to the extent they are inconsistent with the rights protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. This has been expressly recognized under Section 141 of the Education Act. Section 94 is only a regulatory provision to redress the grievances of any employee of any educational institutions, who are either dismissed from service, removed or reduced in rank. 14. In The Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, (1974) 1 SCC 717 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that autonomy in administration means right to administer effectively and to manage and conduct the affairs of the institutions. There exists a classic distinction between a restriction on the right of administration and a regulation prescribing the manner of administration. The right of administration is to carry on the day to day administration, which includes choice in the personnel of management. The University shall always have a right to ensure that there is no mal-administration. If there is mal-administration, the University shall have a prerogative right to exercise to remedy any act of mal-administration. There may be power to control and check on administration in order to find out whether the minority institutions are engaged in activities which are not conducive to the interest of the minority or to the requirements of the teachers and the students. It has been further held that in the field of administration, it is not reasonable to claim that minority institutions will have an absolute and unfettered autonomy. Checks on the administration may be necessary in order to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound to sub-serve the academic needs of the institution. The right of a minority to administer its educational institution involves, as part of it, a correlative duty of good administration. 15. Checks on the administration may be necessary in order to ensure that the administration is efficient and sound to sub-serve the academic needs of the institution. The right of a minority to administer its educational institution involves, as part of it, a correlative duty of good administration. 15. In the case of TMA Pai Foundation's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has raised the following question in relation to the administration of minority educational institutions: "5(c) Whether the statutory provisions which regulate the facets of administration like control over educational agencies, control over governing bodies, conditions of affiliation including recognition/withdrawal thereof, and appointment of staff, employees, teachers and principals including their of service conditions and regulation of fee, etc. would interfere with the right of administration of minorities?". 15.1. The above question was answered as under: "A. So far as the statutory provisions regulating the facets of administration are concerned, in case of an unaided minority educational institution, the regulatory measure of control should be minimal and the conditions of recognition as well as the conditions of affiliation to a university or board have to be complied with, but in the matter of day-to-day management, like the appointment of staff, teaching and non-teaching, and administrative control over them, the management should have the freedom and there should not be any external controlling agency. However, a rational procedure for the selection of teaching staff and for taking disciplinary action has to be evolved by the management itself. For redressing the grievances of employees of aided and unaided institutions who are subjected to punishment or termination from service, a mechanism will have to be evolved, and in our opinion, appropriate tribunals could be constituted, and till then, such tribunals could be presided over by a judicial officer of the rank of District Judge. The State or other controlling authorities, however, can always prescribe the minimum qualification, experience and other conditions bearing on the merit of an individual for being appointed as a teacher or a principal of any educational institution." (emphasis supplied by us) 16. In Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose & Others, AIR 2007 SC 570 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the extent to which the State can regulate the right of the minorities to administer their educational institutions, when such institutions receive aid from the State. In Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic College v. T. Jose & Others, AIR 2007 SC 570 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the extent to which the State can regulate the right of the minorities to administer their educational institutions, when such institutions receive aid from the State. After considering various decisions of the Supreme Court including TMA Pai Foundation's case (supra), the Court has held as under: "Aided institutions give instruction either in secular education or professional education. Religious education is barred in educational institutions maintained out of State fund. These aided educational minority institutions providing secular education or professional education should necessarily have standards comparable with non minority educational institutions. Such standards can be attained and maintained only by having well qualified professional teachers. And institution can have the services of good qualified professional teachers only if the condition of service ensures security, contentment and decent living standards. That is why State can regulate the service conditions of the employees of the minority educational institutions to ensure quality of education. Consequently, any law intended to regulate the service conditions of employees of educational institutions will apply to minority institutions also, provided that such law does not interfere with the overall administrative control of the managements over the staff." (emphasis supplied by us) 17. It has been further held that all laws made by the State to regulate the administration of educational institutions, and the grant of aid, shall apply to minority educational institutions also. But if any such regulations interfere with the overall administrative control by the Management over the staff, or abridges/dilutes, in any other manner, the right to establish and administer educational institutions, such regulations, to that extent, will be inapplicable to a minority institution. 18. From the discussion made above, it is clear that the State can regulate the service conditions of the employees of minority educational institutions, as long as such regulations do not interfere with the over all administrative control by the management over the staff or abridges/dilute, in any manner the right to establish and administer educational institutions. Therefore, it would be incongruous to construe that any law intended to regulate the service conditions, such as provision for filing an appeal to redress the grievances of an employee takes away the right of the management to establish and administer the minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, it would be incongruous to construe that any law intended to regulate the service conditions, such as provision for filing an appeal to redress the grievances of an employee takes away the right of the management to establish and administer the minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. Resultantly, we hold that the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants that the 'Education Act' cannot be made applicable to a minority institution in so far as regulating service conditions of its employees is devoid of merit. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.