ORDER The petitioner-the Management of Sri. Jagadhguru Renukacharya Education Society, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the Society” for short). The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Education Appellate Tribunal dated 25.11.2005 passed in MA.(EAT)No.2/2002 vide Annexure-A, by which the respondent’s appeal against the order of dismissal dated 4.12.2001 came to be allowed. 2. The petitioner-Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and it runs number of educational institutions. The respondent was stated to be selected and appointed as a Clerk-cum-typist in a Law College run by the petitioner-society on 23.9.1996. Among others, the respondent’s pay and allowance was revised by petitioner-society w.e.f. 1.4.1999 from the pay of Rs. 1,950/- to that of Rs. 2,150/- vide Annexure-G2. The pay of the respondent and others was further revised on 16.2.2002 for the period from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 vide Annexure-G3. While things stood thus the petitioner-society re-designated the respondent’s post from the clerk-cum-typist to that of Office Assistant. This is evident from Annexure-G3 wherein against the name of the respondent her designation has been shown as Office Assistant. It seems there was a proposal to discontinue the respondent’s service. However, the respondent submitted a representation for continuation of her service vide Annexure-G4. On 28.6.2001 the petitioner-Society issued a certificate to the respondent stating that her character and conduct are satisfactory and she is discharging the duties entrusted to her to the best satisfaction of her superiors vide Annexure-G5. At this juncture, the petitioner-society made the respondent to execute an agreement with the petitioner-society in respect of contractual appointment vide Annexure-“B”. The said agreement was executed on 1.7.2001. The said agreement is to the effect that respondent herein has to serve the petitioner-Society for the period from 1.7.2001 to 31.3.2002 as an Office Assistant on a monthly salary of Rs.3,150/- without any allowances. It was further agreed that the respondent would be on probation for a period of three months and if the work of the respondent is not satisfied her services would be terminated without notice before expiry of the period of probation and discretion is vested with the petitioner-society. If the respondent’s services were to be terminated after completion of probation period it was with the condition that either party may, in lieu of notice, pay the other party salary for the whole or part of the unexpired period of notice and terminate the contract. If the respondent’s services were to be terminated after completion of probation period it was with the condition that either party may, in lieu of notice, pay the other party salary for the whole or part of the unexpired period of notice and terminate the contract. (It is to be noted that the stamp paper bares the date as 3.8.2001 issued on 31.8.2001 whereas the agreement is executed on 1.7.2001) On 2.8.2001 the respondent requested for release of salary for the month of July 2001 to the President of the petitioner-Society. The petitioner-society issued an office order by which her appointment has been extended from 1.7.2001 to 31.3.2002 and it was also indicated that this was on same terms and conditions as in previous year. It was also indicated that the respondent is required to execute an agreement on stamp paper worth Rs.20/- in prescribed form vide Annexure-G7. The petitioner-Society issued a certificate of service cum salary. Reading of the said certificate shows that the respondent is working in the petitioner-society w.e.f. 24.9.1996 and even her character has been appraised and also pay drawn by her is shown as Rs.3,150/- vide Annexure-G8. On 4.12.2001 the petitioner-Society terminated the services of the respondent vide Office Order No. SJRES.843/01-02. In the termination order it has been indicated that it would be effective from the afternoon of 4.12.2001, while enclosing a cheque for Rs.3,150- as per clause (3) of the agreement vide Annexure-D. 3. The respondent aggrieved by the order of termination dated 4.12.2001 preferred an appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. On 25.11.2005 the respondent’s MA(EAT)No.2/2002 was allowed while setting aside the order of termination dated 4.12.2001 and further directed the petitioner-Society to reinstate the respondent to the same post which was held by her as on the date of termination. It was further ordered that the petitioner-Society shall pay the full backwages from the date of termination until actual reinstatement vide Annexure-A. The petitioner-Society aggrieved by the order of the Educational appellate Tribunal dated 25.11.2005 filed the above writ petition. 4. On 6.2.2006 this Court stayed the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal dated 25.11.2005. On 12.10.2006 this Court allowed the above writ petition in part. Aggrieved by the said order both the petitioner-society and respondent preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and they were numbered as W.A. Nos. 1991/2006 and 2048/2006. 4. On 6.2.2006 this Court stayed the order of the Educational Appellate Tribunal dated 25.11.2005. On 12.10.2006 this Court allowed the above writ petition in part. Aggrieved by the said order both the petitioner-society and respondent preferred an appeal before the Division Bench and they were numbered as W.A. Nos. 1991/2006 and 2048/2006. Both the appeals were remanded to the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order dated 12.10.2006 of the learned single Judge for fresh disposal on 27.6.2012. 5. After remand of the above writ petition, the petitioner-society filed an I.A. for additional facts and grounds for which the respondent filed her objections on 11.7.2013. Thereafter on 31.7.2013 a joint memo was filed with an understanding that the respondent would be given fresh appointment in the petitioner-society. This Court taking note of the joint memo disposed of the writ petition while recording the terms stated in the joint memo on 31.7.2013. The respondent dissatisfied with the contents of the order dated 31.7.2013 filed an application on 11.9.2013 for rectification of the said order. Thereafter on 23.9.2013 the order dated 31.7.2013 passed in the above writ petition has been recalled and the above writ petition is restored to file by the learned Judge. In the meanwhile, it is submitted that in terms of the joint memo the respondent was appointed but the same was withdrawn on 23.9.2013 in view of the order of this Court dated 31.7.2013. It is also submitted that salary cheque of the respondent was issued in lieu of the withdrawal of the appointment/termination letter. On 7.10.2013 the respondent requested for furnishing copy of the termination order dated 28.9.2013. However, the same was not furnished by the petitioner-society. Thereafter at the instance of this Court on 23.1.2015 along with a memo it has been produced in the above writ petition. 6. The petitioner-society raised preliminary issue about the maintainability of appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the respondent is not regularly appointed and since she had been appointed only on contract basis the Educational Appellate Tribunal could not have entertained the appeal of the respondent. The other contention of the petitioner is that the respondent’s termination is in accordance with the agreement executed between respondent and petitioner-society. 7. The other contention of the petitioner is that the respondent’s termination is in accordance with the agreement executed between respondent and petitioner-society. 7. The respondent-employee has filed her statement of objections to the above writ petition in which it was contended that the respondent was initially appointed on permanent basis however when she insisted for salary for certain months which were due to her was not paid, she had requested for payment of arrears of salary and also requested for scale of the post with reference to the State Government employees. Instead of considering her grievance the petitioner-society insisted for entering into an agreement for fresh appointment on contract basis. The respondent was compelled to agree for the terms and conditions posed by the petitioner-Society. It was further contended that she had been terminated unceremoniously. Feeling aggrieved by the order of termination, she had approached the EAT. The respondent culled out two contentions of the petitioner-Society which are as follows:- “(a) This respondent is not a permanent employee of the Management-Institution and termination is based on the contract and therefore the appeal contemplated under Section 94(1) is not maintainable. (b) The termination of this Respondent was due to the consequences of reduction of the work load in the Institution in view of the closure of the Courses viz., 3 years LLB. Course was replaced by 5 years Law Course wherein the strength of students are too less.” 8. The respondent contended that the Appellate Tribunal recorded the evidence of both the parties and allowed the appeal. One of the reasons for termination of the respondent’s service is that due to reduction of work load in the institution (law college) in view of closure of three years’ course for LL.B. degree and replacing the same by five year’s Law course. Due to changed circumstances, students’ strength has been reduced. The respondent has not disputed the changed circumstances in the law college run by the petitioner-society. However, at the same time, it was pointed out that new incumbents have assumed charge in the law college institution after termination of the respondent’s services. Therefore, the reason assigned by the petitioner-Society is not correct. Further, it is contended by the respondent as follows:- “5. However, at the same time, it was pointed out that new incumbents have assumed charge in the law college institution after termination of the respondent’s services. Therefore, the reason assigned by the petitioner-Society is not correct. Further, it is contended by the respondent as follows:- “5. It is submitted that one more circumstance which require to be enlightened to this Hon’ble Court to show that there are no bonafides in any one of the contentions of the Petitioner-Institution. According to the Petitioner-Institution the services of this Respondent is on a contractual basis and the termination has been made in terms of the contract and to substantiate the same the Petitioner has marked Ex.R1 and alleged employment dated 1/7/2001 and copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-‘B’ in the Writ Petition. But one Sri T.S. Rangaraju who was examined on behalf of the management but categorically stated that there are no agreements in appointing this Respondent and in fact his evidence itself could impeach the defense of the Management-Petitioner. The Educational Appellate Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and consistent findings that the alleged agreement as per Ex.R1 is invalid or illegal because, the evidence adduced on behalf of R1 speaks contrary to the defense and secondly, the finding was recorded by the Educational Appellate Tribunal to the fact that the agreement is an outcome of duress or coercive one and this was probablised by the Educational Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the salary of this Respondent was withheld without any reason and to release this arrears of salary the execution of the agreement was made condition precedent and therefore, the agreement is void may does not sanctity at all. This is one of the instance to assess the conduct of the Petitioner and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to seek the discretionary relief under Article 226. 6. This is one of the instance to assess the conduct of the Petitioner and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to seek the discretionary relief under Article 226. 6. It is submitted that in the course of the evidence on behalf of the Management one Sri T.S. Rangaraju was examined as RW1 he was subjected to elaborate cross-examination and it is pertinent to invite the attention of this Hon’ble Court on the portion extracted by the Appellate Tribunal in Paragraph No. 6, of the judgment and what is extracted therein was that the answers are reduced in writing to the suggestion put to the management with reference to RW1 and thereby it was unequivocally admitted by the Management to the fact that this Respondent is a permanent incumbent of the Management – Institution. So far as the theory of alleged agreement is concerned the probable situation was examined by the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of the evidence available on record and there by it was held that the agreement is an outcome of coercion. The circumstances what prompted the Management to get such an agreement was also explained in the Order of the Appellate Tribunal and what it states is that the salary of this Respondent was withheld for a longtime and to execute such a document was made as condition precedent to release the salary and therefore, what was proposed by the Appellate Tribunal was for withholding of the salary and also execution of the agreement as condition precedent to release the salary and hence it is based on coercion or undue influence, that agreement was invalid and illegal one.” 9. The petitioner-Society filed I.A.I/2013 for additional facts and grounds while producing two documents as Annexure L1 and L2, the documents relating the student’s strength for the year 2008-09 to 2012-13 and further document relating to LL.B. course conducted by various colleges in the entire Karnataka State. The respondent filed statement of objections to the said I.A. Further, the petitioner-Society filed memo furnishing the pay bills pertaining to non-teaching staff of SJRC Law College for the year 1999-2013 as per the directions of this Court. 10. During pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner-Society along with an affidavit dated 10.7.2006 produced additional documents as Annexure-L1 to L4 which are relating to admission of the students strength from 2002 to 2006 and balance sheet for those years. 10. During pendency of the above writ petition, the petitioner-Society along with an affidavit dated 10.7.2006 produced additional documents as Annexure-L1 to L4 which are relating to admission of the students strength from 2002 to 2006 and balance sheet for those years. The respondent filed counter affidavit and produced auditor’s report for the year 2002 to 2005 and also copy of the judgment of the Apex Court. 11. In terms of the joint memo filed by the petitioner and respondent the respondent was provided appointment and copy of the appointment order was not made available to the respondent. The same was produced along with a memo and so also an office order relieving the respondent dated 27.9.2013 which would be effective from 28.9.2013. A cheque for Rs.8,045/- being the salary for the number of days she has worked is also enclosed. It was indicated in the said order that the respondent’s services would be terminated on the after noon of 28.9.2013. The aforesaid appointment order as well as the termination order are in pursuance of the disposal of the writ petition while recording the joint memo of the petitioner and the respondent read with recalling order dated 31.07.2013. 12. Section 2(15) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 deals with the meaning of employee. “Employee” means a person employed in an Educational institution. The said definition is relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue of maintainability of appeal before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, under Section 94(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. 13. The petitioner’s counsel Sri. C.M. Nagabhushan vehemently contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the appeal of the respondent under Section 94(1) of the Act, 1983 is not maintainable. The appeal under the aforesaid provision is permissible only if an employee is removed or dismissed from service. Since the respondent was appointed on contract basis and she was a temporary employee the appeal of the respondent before the EAT should have been rejected at the threshold. In support of this contention, the petitioner’s counsel relied on the orders passed in MA.EAT.28/99 and MA.EAT.29/99. In the aforesaid appeals, the petitioner was the respondent and the appellants were the employees of the petitioner-respondent who were also appointed on contract basis/temporary employees. In support of this contention, the petitioner’s counsel relied on the orders passed in MA.EAT.28/99 and MA.EAT.29/99. In the aforesaid appeals, the petitioner was the respondent and the appellants were the employees of the petitioner-respondent who were also appointed on contract basis/temporary employees. Therefore, it was contended that the EAT erred in entertaining the appeal of the respondent when identical matters were rejected on the sole ground that they were appointed on contract basis. It was further pointed out that respondent in her evidence before the Tribunal has admitted as follows “It is true, I was appointed as a casual worker. I have no documents to show that I was appointed permanently.” 14. The petitioner’s counsel relied on two decisions namely ILR 2000 Kar 2633 and 1997(2) SCC 560 and JT 1992(4) SC 489. 15. During pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner produced certain communications between the respondent and petitioner along with the written submission to show that the respondent was not regular employee. However, an office order has been produced dated 27.8.1998, 5.11.1998, 12.11.1998, a chart relating to extending revised pay and allowances of the principal and non-teaching staff of SJR Law College wherein pay scales have been stated that in the pay scale of 1280 to 2375, 1040-1900, 870-1520 and 840-1340. In the said chart name of the respondent is at Sl.No.6. Her pay has been fixed in the pay scale of 1040-1900. An extract of the chart is reproduced herein:- SRI JAGADGURU EDUCATION SOCIETY: BENGALURU-09 REVISED PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THE PRINCIPAL & NON-TEACHING STAFF OF S.J.R. LAW COLLEGE PAY SCALES: I. Rs.1280-30-1400-40-1800-50-2300-75-2375 II. Rs.1040-20-1100-30-1400-40-1800-50-1900 III. Rs.870-15-900-20-1100-30-1400-40-1520 IV.Rs.840-15-90-20-1100-30-1340 Sl. No. Name & Designation Sriyuths/Smt.: Total Service Scale of pay Pay & allowances from 1.4.1999 Salary as on 31.3.99 Pay: CA OA Spl. OA Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Prof. S. Indudhara Principal Years 3 Rs. Consoli Dated Rs. 3,000 Rs. 3,300 Rs. - Rs. - Rs. 6,300/- Rs. 6,000/- 2 M.R. Prabhakar, A.O. 1½ “ 2,400 900 - - 3,300/- 3,000/- 3 B.N. Bhadrappa Accountant 1½ “ 1,600 400 400 - 2,400/- 2,200/- 4 K. Sapna Librarian 2½ I 2,300 260 690 - 3,450/- 3,200/- 5 Sridevi Asst. Librarian 2½ II 1,280 260 710 - 2,250/- 2,000/- 6 R.B. Umadevi Office Asst. - Rs. - Rs. 6,300/- Rs. 6,000/- 2 M.R. Prabhakar, A.O. 1½ “ 2,400 900 - - 3,300/- 3,000/- 3 B.N. Bhadrappa Accountant 1½ “ 1,600 400 400 - 2,400/- 2,200/- 4 K. Sapna Librarian 2½ I 2,300 260 690 - 3,450/- 3,200/- 5 Sridevi Asst. Librarian 2½ II 1,280 260 710 - 2,250/- 2,000/- 6 R.B. Umadevi Office Asst. 2+1 II 1,080 220 850 - 2,150/- 1,950/- 7 Shivalingaiah Class ‘D’ 22 III 1,250 250 450 - 1,950/- 1,750/- 8 Siddarajappa Class ‘D’ 3 IV 870 175 255 - 1,300/- 1,150/- 9 Ramakrishna K. Bagewadi 2 ½ +2 IV 870 175 305 - 1,350/- 1,200/- The said document is issued by the Administrative Officer of the SJR Education Society. Similarly, number of documents have been produced by the petitioner. There is discrepancy in the documents about the status of the respondent i.e. on one hand it is stated that the respondent is a temporary employee/contract and on the other hand pay scale attached to the post has been extended. It is to be noted that if an employee is appointed on contract basis he or she is entitled to only a consolidated pay whereas in the present case the respondent has been extended not only pay scale, but also the benefit of revised pay scale, among others. Therefore, it is to be held that the respondent was a permanent employee. In order to deny her service benefit subsequently at the behest of the Education Society by coercion, agreement for contractual appointment has been executed. At this stage, it is relevant to note that agreement for contract appointment which was executed in the month of August 2001 is a created one as is evident from the date of issuance of the stamp paper i.e. dated 3.8.2001 whereas the date of agreement is 1.7.2001. It is to be noted that the stamp paper was issued to the petitioner on 30.8.2001 and the respondent signature was obtained on the agreement dated 1.7.2001, on 4.9.2001. Therefore, conduct of the petitioner is doubtful in respect of execution of agreement to point out that the respondent’s appointment was on contract basis. No doubt, the respondent for extraneous reasons might have put her signature to the agreement, whereas pay scale and revised pay scale extended to the respondent cannot be ignored. Therefore, conduct of the petitioner is doubtful in respect of execution of agreement to point out that the respondent’s appointment was on contract basis. No doubt, the respondent for extraneous reasons might have put her signature to the agreement, whereas pay scale and revised pay scale extended to the respondent cannot be ignored. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that respondent was appointed on contract basis and the appeal before the EAT is maintainable is not tenable. 16. Section 2(15) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 deals with definition of employee, which reads as follows:- “Employee means a person employed in an educational institution.” Meaning of the employee is defined only to the extent that a person employed in an Educational Institution the Act is applicable. The aforesaid provision do not distinguish between permanent/ad-hoc employee so as to contend that the respondent is a temporary employee/contract employee and the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 is not applicable. In view of the above provision of law irrespective of status of an employee in an education institution the aforesaid Act is applicable. Consequently, the appeal before the Education Appellate Tribunal is maintainable. 17. The petitioner’s contention is that MA(EAT) Nos.28/99 and 29/99 were dismissed on the ground that the appellants in the aforesaid appeals were appointed as contractual employees. The appellants in those cases could not have established that they were appointed on regular basis consequently the Tribunal might have held that they were contract appointees and appeal was not maintainable under Section 94(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. That does not mean that the respondent herein is prevented from demonstrating that she is a regular employee. In fact the respondent herein has produced necessary documents to show that she was a regular employee. That apart, the petitioner along with the written submission produced number of documents wherein pay scale and revised pay scale has been extended to the respondent herein. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that the other two M.A(EAT) 28/99 and 29/99 decisions are applicable to the case of the respondent is not tenable. Service conditions of the each employee may differ having regard to the language employed pertaining to their service records and service benefits extended to each employee. In the present case, it is crystal clear that the respondent has been extended pay scale as well as revised pay scale and contract employee is entitled to only consolidated pay. Service conditions of the each employee may differ having regard to the language employed pertaining to their service records and service benefits extended to each employee. In the present case, it is crystal clear that the respondent has been extended pay scale as well as revised pay scale and contract employee is entitled to only consolidated pay. Therefore, it is to be held that the respondent was appointed permanently. 18. The petitioner relied on three decisions. Those decisions are relating to appointment of adhoc employee. The same are not applicable to the present case since in those decisions the employees were working on adhoc basis or contract whereas in the present case, it is evident that the respondent is working in the regular post since she has been paid with reference to pay scale and so also revised pay scale. 19. In the MA(EAT) No.2/2002 proceedings, the respondent has deposed by way of affidavit evidence on 23.1.2004 which reads as follows:- “Affidavit evidence filed Witness recalled and duly sworn on 23.01.2004 Further Examination in Chief by Sri S.V.K. Initially I was paid consolidated salary of Rs.1,500/- per month in 1996. In the year 99 salary was revised. Copy furnished to me is marked as Ex.P.1. My salary was fixed to Rs.2,150/-. In the year 2001 my salary my increased to Rs.3,150/- along with other staff members. It was unaided college. My salary was less than the government staff salary, it is marked at Ex.P.2. On 30.05.2001 I gave representation to the college to continue my service the said copy is marked at Ex.P.3. Certificate issued by the college is marked at Ex.P.4. Letter dated 04.08.2001 to continue my service same is marked at Ex.P.5. O 18.9.2001 a service cum salary certificate was issued by the college, it is marked at Ex.P6. have produced termination order dated 04.12.2001 is marked at Ex.P.7. Nijalingappa Director of Law College was abusing me without any reasons. Even I asked him reasons for abusing, he did not give any reason. He use to keep the file and letters in his almirah and was asking be whereabouts of those files and was abusing me, second respondent Channabasappa asked me to sign the agreement and he did no paid the salary without my signature on agreement. After I made the signature, salary was paid.” In the aforesaid proceedings one Sri. He use to keep the file and letters in his almirah and was asking be whereabouts of those files and was abusing me, second respondent Channabasappa asked me to sign the agreement and he did no paid the salary without my signature on agreement. After I made the signature, salary was paid.” In the aforesaid proceedings one Sri. Rangaraju was examined as R.W.1 by way of affidavit evidence which reads as follows:- “I, T.S. Rangaraju, Son of D.S. Sriman, aged about 54 years, working as FDA in Respondent’s institution, residing of Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. I am working in the respondent’s Institution as FDA for the past 35 years and I know the facts of the case and I am authorized by the respondent to swear to this affidavit. 2. I submit that, the S.J.R. College of Law is not an aided college and it is not getting any type of aid/grant from the Government or any other authority. As it is not an aided college, the employees of the said college are appointed on contractual basis and they are not appointed with the approval of the Government and as such Karnataka Education Act 1983 is not applicable to such employees as such Sec. 92 of the said Act is not attracted. 3. The appellant was working in S.J.R. Law College and the college is not made a party to this appeal. 4. The appellant was taken on service charge basis for a temporary period and she was paid consolidated wages and subsequently she has entered into an contract agreement and the same was produced and has been marked as Exhibit-R.1. Apart from what is stated in the contract, no assurances or promises were made to the appellant. As the appellant was working on contract basis for a temporary period, fixing a time scale did not arise. Some of the other sister institutions, for example S.J.R. Sciences, Arts and Commerce College is a partly aided institutions and only such of those employees of aided institutions appointed with the approval of Director of Collegiate Education, Government of Karnataka are getting salary in par with the Government scales and the salary is paid by the Government. Some of the other sister institutions, for example S.J.R. Sciences, Arts and Commerce College is a partly aided institutions and only such of those employees of aided institutions appointed with the approval of Director of Collegiate Education, Government of Karnataka are getting salary in par with the Government scales and the salary is paid by the Government. Those employees who are not appointed with the approval of the Director of Collegiate Education, their salary is paid by the Government, but their salary is paid as per their contractual terms of appointment out of the meager funds of the Institution. 5. Shri Nijaligappa who was Director of S.J.R. Law College who is not working now in the college and Sri. Channabasappa, Administrative Officer of S.J.R. Education Society have not harassed the appellant. 6. The appellant’s services came to an end as per condition 3 of the agreement and the service of the appellant was not terminate. 7. The S.J.R. Law College was running three years LL.B. Course both morning and evening as a post graduate degree and the said course was abolished from the academic year 1999-2000 (Morning Session) and the evening session was closed from the academic year 2000-01, form the academic year 2000-01 regular full time five year Law Degree course was introduced in the college. Admission of student for law degree from the academic year 1999-2000 was drastically reduced. Statistics of admission strength for the academic year 1996-2002 is produced along with written statement as Annexure-A. 8. The college had a very poor admission from 1996 onwards and it was found extremely difficult to manage the finances of the college and it was inevitable to cut down expenditure on salaries by reducing the staff strength including, determining salaries by contract agreement of the appellant as per letter dated 4.12.2001. As required under the terms of contract agreement the appellant was issued notice dated 4.10.2001 as her services was no longer required by the college. As a result of poor admissions, there was no work load in the college to continue the services of the appellant on contract. 9. Further, I respectfully submit that the appellant was not appointed on permanent vacancy and she voluntarily entered into a contract agreement and the appellant being a Law Graduate executed the contract agreement her free will knowing the entire terms and conditions of contract. 9. Further, I respectfully submit that the appellant was not appointed on permanent vacancy and she voluntarily entered into a contract agreement and the appellant being a Law Graduate executed the contract agreement her free will knowing the entire terms and conditions of contract. The appellant was not a permanent employee but only an employee on contract basis. WHEREFORE, I respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to dismiss the appeal with costs in the interest of justice and equity.” Further, the evidence of the said witness in his cross-examination on 21/10.2005 reads thus:- GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU.(CCC.NO.11) MAEAT 2/2002 Deposition of                T.S. Rangaraju FATHER’S NAME     D.S. SRIMAN AGE                            54 YEARS OCCUPATION          FDA IN F.R.I. RESIDENCE               BENGALURU Witness called and duly sworn on 21/10/2005 Further Examination in Chief by Sri ACUH: I have filed the affidavit in lieu of evidence, its contents are true and correct and it bears my signature. Cross Examination by : SVG: It is true that the appellant was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist on 23.9.96 with salary of Rs.1500/- per month at the S.J.R. Law College. At that time there was no agreement about on employment. She was appointed after holding regular interview. It is true that Rs.1500/- as her salary was for less than the salary prescribed by the Government. It is true that after some time the petitioner was requesting to increase her salary and she her salary was increased as requested by her. It is true that at the end of her service she was drawing Rs.3150/- as on 16.2.2001. It is true that the 2nd respondent was working as administrative officer when the petitioner was working there. At that time one Nijalingappa was looking after the management of the respondent College. It is not correct to say that the 2nd and 3rd respondent were threatening to remove her from service whenever she demanded that she should be paid the salary prescribed by the Government as she as getting age barred. I do not know about the appellant filing case before the Government trying to give Government scale and it is still pending. Some other employees of the respondent had filed petition to the Government demanding to pay the Government scale and it is still pending. I do not know about the appellant filing case before the Government trying to give Government scale and it is still pending. Some other employees of the respondent had filed petition to the Government demanding to pay the Government scale and it is still pending. Some other employees of the respondent had filed petition to the Government demanding to pay the Government scale and I know about it. It is true that the appeal filed by them to the Government was allowed. The other employees are not yet given the Government scale, about who had taken such order. It is true that the salary of the appellant was not paid for one or two months and I do not know why it was withheld. It is not correct to say that when the appellant went and asked to release that salary she was insisted to give in writing that she is agreeable to be removed from service at any time by the respondent. No such incident has taken place in my presence. In my presence she was not asked to give any such undertaking by the respondents. It is not correct to say that only when she signed such undertaking her salary was released. She was removed from service as per impugned order Ex.P.7. There was no decision of the managing committee before issuing Ex.P.7., but there was the decision of the secretary. The Secretary is an Executive Officer of the managing committee and he can carry out the decisions of the managing committee. No enquiry was held against the appellant before issuing Ex.P.7 order and no notice was given to her before issuing that order. When she was taken for appointment. She was not taken on a contractual employment. It is not correct to say that as the appellant was insisting to give more salary she was removed from service. It is not correct to say that there was no reduction in the workload as stated by me and I am giving false evidence. It is not correct to say that reduction in the work loan was not the basis for removable. It is true that after the petitioner was removed from service two other ladies were appointed as clerks by the respondent. She was not given any notice asking her by she should not be removed, as there was reduction in the workload. It is not correct to say that reduction in the work loan was not the basis for removable. It is true that after the petitioner was removed from service two other ladies were appointed as clerks by the respondent. She was not given any notice asking her by she should not be removed, as there was reduction in the workload. Re-examination: The application filed by her before the Government claiming salary equal to Government servants is still pending. In the other set of applications the Government has passed the order stating that Government salary should not be paid to the employees of the private institutions. Further cross-examination with permission:- I cannot say whether in that order batch the Government has directed to pay the salary until the date of their termination as they were already terminated and the cases were pending. (Typed to my dictation in open court) ROT & AC R.B. Uma Devi Sd/- XXX (S.S. KUMBAR) VIACCJ: BENGALURU Having regard to the aforesaid factual aspect it is evident that the respondent was a regular employee. Even assuming that deposition of respondent is against her but one cannot ignore records relating to grant of pay scale and revised scale which are crucial documents to hold that the respondent is a permanent employee. 20. The respondent’s counsel Sri. M. Veerabhadraiah, heavily relied on the conduct of the petitioner in respect of execution of agreement to appoint respondent on contract basis and he has pinpointed that the date of issuance of the stamp paper, date of agreement and date on which respondent’s signature was obtained reveals that in order to play fraud on the respondent such an agreement has been prepared and in order to deny her service benefits as demanded by her at the relevant point of time. Insofar as discrepancy in the agreement for contract appointment executed on 1.7.2001, the petitioner’s counsel submits that there was already a proposal to go for an agreement and a draft agreement was prepared on 1.7.2001 and signature of the respondent herein was obtained on 4.9.2001. However, the reasons stated by the petitioner cannot be accepted since it is evident that the respondent was appointed regularly and only to deny her service benefits such an agreement has been prepared. 21. However, the reasons stated by the petitioner cannot be accepted since it is evident that the respondent was appointed regularly and only to deny her service benefits such an agreement has been prepared. 21. The respondent’s counsel submits that the competent authority has not terminated the services of the respondent since services of the respondent has been terminated on 4.12.2001. An extract of the Office order is reproduced herein:- “No. SJRES./0102 4.12.2001 OFFICE ORDER The Services of Smt. G.N. Veena, Typist, in S.J.R. Law College is terminated with effect from the afternoon of 4th December 2001. A Cheque for Rs.2,750/- (Rupees Two Thousand Seven hundred and fifty only) being the one month’s salary is enclosed, in lieu of one month’s notice required as per clause three of the Agreement. For Secretary SJR. Education Society. To, 1. The Director, SJR Law College. 2. The Principal, SJR Law college. 3. Smt. G.N. Veena, Typist, SJR Law College. 4. The Accounts Officer, SJRES. 5. The Chairman, Governing Council, SJRC. 6. Appointment file.” 22. From the aforesaid office order, the respondent’s counsel submits that it has been issued on behalf of Secretary, SJR Education Society by one Sri. Channabasappa, who was not the Secretary. He has also pointed out that the petitioner in their statement of objections before the EAT contended as follows:- “19. In respect of additional grounds, it is submitted that there is no need to place the subject before the Committee as the Secretary represents and acts on behalf of the society and the agreement is signed by the Secretary. Besides, administrative Officer has only carried out the orders of the Society and therefore, the allegation of the appellant that second respondent was totally incompetent to issue impugned order, is untenable.” In the aforesaid context, the respondent’s counsel relied on Section 42(1) and Section 43(2) and (3) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, while pointing out that termination order is not in terms of the aforesaid provision, consequently, the same is not in terms of the statutory provision. 23. The respondent’s counsel contended that the appellate Tribunal has examined the matter in detail with reference to records and evidence and also relied on the documents relating to extension of pay and revised pay allowed to the respondent. 24. 23. The respondent’s counsel contended that the appellate Tribunal has examined the matter in detail with reference to records and evidence and also relied on the documents relating to extension of pay and revised pay allowed to the respondent. 24. For the first time, the petitioner’s counsel contended before the Appellate Tribunal that the reasons for the termination of the respondent is that earlier three year’s course of LLB was being run by the SJR Education Society subsequently, five years course for LLB was introduced consequently, there is drastic change in student’s strength. In view of the reduction of students strength in the college there were insufficient administrative work. Thus, the respondent’s services have been terminated with reference to agreement. However no material or recording of reasons as on the date of termination is produced. 25. The aforesaid reason is an afterthought for the reason that at the time of termination of the respondent no documents reveal that her termination is due to reduction in LLB student’s admission. Therefore, reasoning assigned by the petitioner’s counsel for termination of the respondent in the above matter cannot be taken into consideration. 26. The respondent’s counsel relied on four judgments relating to scope of interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227. The same are taken on record. Question of discussing those judgments may not arise since I am not interfering with the finding of the facts of the lower Court. When the records maintained by the petitioner-education society reveals that the respondent has been granted pay scale and revised pay scale it is sufficient to hold that the respondent is a regular employee of the petitioner-education society. At this juncture it is to be noted that contract employee would be paid consolidate pay. When an employee is paid salary in terms of pay scale, he/she has been appointed against a post and in a scale of pay. 27. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances I have perused the records of the writ petition and the order of the EAT dated 25.11.2005 passed in MA(EAT) No.2/2002 is upheld. The petitioner is directed to implement the order of MA(EAT) No.2/2002 immediately and to work out arrears of salary and the same shall be paid within 3 months from today. Consequently, the writ petition is without any merits and accordingly it is rejected.