JUDGMENT 1. Though the matter is listed for Orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.11.2015 passed by respondent No.3 as well as the orders dated 24.11.2015, 22.10.2019 and 30.10.2019 passed by respondent No.4, inter alia, seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 5 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Principal of respondent No.5 - College. 3. The case on hand has a chequered history. The petitioner is making attempts to get appointment as the Principal of respondent No.5 College in terms of the appointment order dated 02.12.1985 issued by respondent No.4 but of no avail. 4. The facts relevant at present are that the petitioner though issued with the appointment order dated 02.12.1985, got reported to duty on 13.12.1985; whereas respondent No.6 was reported to duty on 02.12.1985 itself. In terms of the appointment order dated 02.12.1985, grant-in-aid was approved to the petitioner from 13.12.1985 and for respondent No.6 from 02.12.1985. Being aggrieved by the decision taken by the Management respondent No.4 to appoint respondent No.6 as the Principal, the petitioner had approached the Karnataka State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, whereby it was held that the Principals post is vacant in respondent No.5 College since 01.10.2015, according to the Rules, the petitioner shall be promoted to the Principals post and given all the financial benefits from the said date. 5. Being aggrieved, respondent No.4 Education Society had filed W.P.No.47753/2017, which came to be disposed of on 02.07.2019, directing the respondent No.4 - Education Society to issue notice to the person, who is likely to be affected (respondent No.6) and also to the petitioner and thereafter to take a decision in the matter keeping in mind the suggestion made by the Karnataka State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission. Pursuant to which, a decision has been taken by respondent No.4 Education Society in terms of the order dated 30.10.2019 holding that respondent No.6 shall be the appropriate candidate for the post of Principal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.11.2015 whereby respondent No.3 has observed that respondent No.6 is senior as per the Karnataka Pre- University Education (Academic, Recognition, Administration and Grant-in-aid, etc.,) Rules, 2006 (Rules for short). 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.11.2015 whereby respondent No.3 has observed that respondent No.6 is senior as per the Karnataka Pre- University Education (Academic, Recognition, Administration and Grant-in-aid, etc.,) Rules, 2006 (Rules for short). 6. Learned counsel Smt. Jyothi B. Kangokar appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is fighting for his legal rights since 1985. Though the petitioner and respondent No.6 were issued with the appointment order on the same day i.e., on 02.12.1985, the appointment order was served to the petitioner through the Registered Post Acknowledgement Due, due to which the petitioner reported to duty only on 13.12.1985, whereas respondent No.6 was served in person through hand, facilitating him to report to duty on 02.12.1985 itself. However, suppressing the date of appointment of the petitioner, the Management of respondent No.4 placed the records before the Official respondents for the approval of grant-in-aid. The Official respondents considering the date of reporting to the duty of the petitioner and respondent No.6, approved the grant-in-aid from the date of the petitioner and respondent No.6 reporting to duty, which is the genesis for the lis now resulting in the seniority accrued to the respondent No.6. It is submitted that the Revision filed before the Government in terms of Section 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (Act for short) challenging the order dated 09.11.2015 was withdrawn pursuant to the disposal of the W.P.No.47753/2017. 7. Learned counsel Sri. N.S. Prasad appearing for respondent No.4 Education Society placing reliance on Rule 21(2) of the Rules would submit that the posts and the persons working in such posts in private aided Pre-University Colleges shall be eligible for grant-in-aid only from the date of sanction of the grant-in-aid by the Government and the earlier period of un-aided service shall not count for any pay fixation, increment, leave, seniority and other service benefits including pension. In terms of the said Rules, respondent No.6 being senior, has been appointed to the post of the Principal. It is submitted that the petitioner having initiated proceedings under Section 131 of the Act before the Government cannot initiate parallel proceedings invoking the writ jurisdiction before this Court. Learned counsel also referred to the notice dated 02.01.2020 said to have been issued to the Management in the so called pending proceedings before the Government. 8. Learned counsel Sri. It is submitted that the petitioner having initiated proceedings under Section 131 of the Act before the Government cannot initiate parallel proceedings invoking the writ jurisdiction before this Court. Learned counsel also referred to the notice dated 02.01.2020 said to have been issued to the Management in the so called pending proceedings before the Government. 8. Learned counsel Sri. M.S. Parthasarathy appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 would submit that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction. At the outset, the writ petition deserves to be rejected as not maintainable. Respondent No.6 being duly reported to duty pursuant to the appointment order dated 02.12.1985, an offer made for appointment, has acquired the seniority. At this juncture, the order dated 09.11.2015 issued by respondent No.3 cannot be challenged before this Court having challenged the same before respondent No.1 at the first instance and withdrawing the same as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner now. Reliance is also placed on Rule 21(2) of the Rules in support of his arguments. It is submitted that the petitioner without impleading the affected person (respondent No.6) had approached the Karnataka State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission and considering the same, this Court in W.P.No.47753/2017 directed the respondent No.4 to provide an opportunity to call the affected parties i.e., the petitioner as well as respondent No.6 and to take a decision in the matter keeping in mind the suggestions made by the Commission. Considering all these aspects in a right perspective, respondent No.4 has taken a decision which cannot be held to be unjustifiable. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the issue involved herein necessarily requires to be considered by respondent No.1 in view of the disputed facts. If such proceedings are initiated by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the competent Authority in accordance with law. 10. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the disputed facts urged in this writ petition cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has to exhaust the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Act. Indeed, the petitioner had initiated such proceedings before the respondent No.1 and pursuant to the disposal of the writ petition before this Court, the same was withdrawn. The petitioner has to exhaust the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Act. Indeed, the petitioner had initiated such proceedings before the respondent No.1 and pursuant to the disposal of the writ petition before this Court, the same was withdrawn. However, now being aggrieved by the decision taken by respondent No.4, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to avail the remedy available under the Act to adjudicate the matter before respondent No.1. 11. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, keeping open all the rights and contentions of the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to initiate the proceedings before the respondent No.1 under Section 131 of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. If such proceedings are initiated, the respondent No.1 shall consider the same in accordance with law and a decision shall be taken on merits notwithstanding the withdrawal of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner, without objecting to the period of limitation, in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than twelve weeks from the date of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner. It is made clear that no precipitative action shall be taken by the respondent Authorities to approve the post of respondent No.6 for the post of Principal for a period of two weeks. Respondent Nos.4 and 6 shall cooperate for the expedite disposal of the proceedings, if initiated by the petitioner before respondent No.1.