Order Petitioner has assailed order dated 22/8/2014 passed by the Education Appellate Tribunal, Chamarajanagar, (“EAT” for short) in EAT No.1/2012 (AnnexureF to the writ petition). 2. Briefly stated the facts are that, the 3rd respondent had filed an appeal under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (“the Act” for short), being aggrieved by his removal from service of 1st respondent institution. By judgment dated 1/7/2010, the EAT allowed his appeal and ordered for reinstatement of 3rd respondent in service forthwith, with backwages and consequential benefits. According to petitioner’s counsel, that order was challenged by the respondent institution in W.P. Nos. 26934935/2010, wherein interim order was passed on 17/10/2011 to the following effect: “Sri. M.V. Vedachala, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are willing to take the respondent back into service. The impugned order directs the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent into service. In view of the direction issued by the EAT and the submission of Sri. M.V. Vedachala, petitioners are directed to reinstate the respondent into service, within a period of one week from today. The issues with regard to the back wages and fixation of salary would be considered at a later date. Call for LCR from the EAT. Relist the matters on 4/11/2011.” Thereafter, writ petitions were closed by order dated 14/12/2011 in the following terms: “The counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent has been reinstated into service and also indicates that a sum of Rs.75,000/- would be paid towards the arrears of salary in full and final settlement though the claim of the respondent is for a larger amount. 2. Recording the submission, the petitions stand closed.” 3. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent approached the EAT in No. EAT 1/2012 by challenging the recommendation made by the respondent institution to extend grantinaid salary to the petitioner herein and instead to include his name for the purpose of extension of grantinaid. By judgment dated 22/8/2014, the EAT allowed the appeal and directed 1st and 2nd respondent-institutions to recommend the name of the 3rd respondent herein for grantinaid salary in continuation of the earlier recommendation made in that regard as per rules. That order is assailed by the petitioner herein. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. That order is assailed by the petitioner herein. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. He contended that petitioner’s name was recommended for the purpose of extension of grantinaid salary and he was, in fact, extended the salary benefits. But the respondent institution has now proposed the name of 3rd respondent for the purpose of extension of grantinaid salary. He contended that the EAT could not have passed the impugned order and the same is not in accordance with law, as it results in deletion of the petitioner from the grantinaid benefit. 6. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, it is noted that the impugned order is in continuation of the earlier order made by it on 1/7/2010 in EAT. No. 5/2004 and subsequently, by following the interim order of this Court dated 17/10/2012 and 14/12/2011. The order dated 1/7/2010 reads as under: “In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby allowed, directing the respondents to reinstate the appellant in service forthwith and the appellant is entitled for back wages and consequential benefits.” Once the 3rd respondent was reinstated with all the consequential benefits, then he would also be entitled to the benefit of grantinaid salary. During the pendency of EAT. No. 5/2004, the petitioner herein had been extended the benefit of grantinaid salary. That was because, the 3rd respondent was engaged in assailing his order of removal. Once the 3rd respondent has been reinstated back in service with all consequential benefits, then he has to be extended the benefit of grantinaid salary also. The petitioner though made a party in EAT.No.1/2012, would in no way have locus standi to assail the admission of the third respondent to grantinaid as per rules, pursuant to the order made by the EAT in EAT.No.1/2012. In that view of the matter, petitioner cannot have any grievance in that regard. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. 7. In the result, writ petition is rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek the benefit of extension of grantinaid salary to the petitioner on his own merit and without reference to the extension of grantinaid salary to the 3rd respondent.