JUDGMENT : 1. The captioned writ petitions arising out of the same facts and issue are heard and decided analogously by this Common judgment. 2. The petitioner, who was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the respondent-College run by the respondent No. 3 trust, has challenged his termination from the service. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Clerk vide order dated 01.09.2002 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. It is the case of the petitioner that after serving 4 years of services in the year 2006, when he went for leave since he met with an accident on 16.04.2016 and thereafter, when he tried to resume on 21.05.2006, the petitioner was not allowed to attend the duty. It is the case of the petitioner, thereafter, since he was not allowed to resume duty, he preferred the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 20915 of 2006. By the order dated 09.10.2006, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondent-Trust to allow the petitioner to resume the duties on 12.11.2006. Accordingly the petitioner resumed his duty on 12.11.2006 but thereafter, it is alleged by him that he was only allowed to work for three days and not allowed to enter into the College. It appears that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the order dated 09.10.2006 with a liberty to revive the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 20915 of 2006. Pursuant to the note filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent-College did not allow him to resume the duty, the petition was revived, vide order dated 13.11.2006. After the revival of the aforesaid petition, the respondent College issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him as to why he should not be removed from the services. The show cause notice was issued on 06.03.2008. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice vide reply dated 13.03.2008 and thereafter, by the impugned order dated 17.03.2008, the petitioner was removed from the services. The aforesaid order dated 17.03.2008 is the subject matter of challenge in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7527 of 2008. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi for learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent College in total defiance of the earlier order passed by this Court did not allow the petitioner to resume the duty. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi for learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent College in total defiance of the earlier order passed by this Court did not allow the petitioner to resume the duty. He has submitted that he was only allowed for three days work and thereafter, he was not permitted to resume the duty. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Gandhi has submitted that after the petitioner met with an accident, in the year 2006, he was not allowed to sign the muster roll as well as he was barred from entering the campus and hence the same action was challenged before this Court. He has invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 09.10.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 20915 of 2006 and has submitted as mentioned in the aforesaid order, the respondent College allowed the petitioner to resume the duty on 12.11.2006 and thereafter, he worked to three days, however, since he was not allowed to work, by the representation dated 16.10.2006, the petitioner informed the Director of Primary Education in this regard. He has submitted that the impugned order removing the present petitioner from the service on 17.03.2008 is illegal and since the same is passed without holding departmental proceedings and the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Mrugen Purohit appearing for the respondent College and Trust has submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the alternate remedy available under Sections 10 and 11 of the Gujarat Educational Institution Services Tribunal Act, 2006. He has submitted that, in fact, the petitioner was issued various show caused notices on 12.06.2006, 21.06.2006 and 04.07.2006, but he did resume the duty. Ultimately, vide communication dated 04.11.2006 the College informed the Director of Primary Education that the petitioner is not interested in working in the College and incorrect facts were placed before the High Court, which led to passing of the aforesaid order dated 09.10.2006 by the Coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 20915 of 2006. . 6. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit has submitted that the order dated 09.10.2006 was passed by this Court without hearing the respondents and the matter was disposed with a liberty to revive. Learned advocate Mr. . 6. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit has submitted that the order dated 09.10.2006 was passed by this Court without hearing the respondents and the matter was disposed with a liberty to revive. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit has invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 07.02.2007 passed in Special Civil Application No. 20915 of 2006 and has submitted that the Court has recorded the contentions about the non maintainability of the petition and said question is left open and hence at this stage, the petition may not be entertained as the petitioner has an alternate remedy to approach the Tribunal. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Purohit has submitted that there are serious disputed questions of fact. He has also submitted that pursuant to the communication dated 02.12.2006, written by the petitioner, asking for three days leave, which was granted, but after the three days, the petitioner never reported to his duty and the institute was left with no other option but to issue a show cause notice to him. It is submitted thereafter he was terminated from his service. He has submitted that no stigma is attached in the impugned order by relation as since the institute has terminated the service due to the absence ignoring resuming the duties and abandonment of the service and hence the present petition may not be entertained. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decision dated 28.02.2019 passed in Civil Application No. 2394 of 2019, 14.02.2019 passed in CA 9166 of 2013 and decision dated 09.07.2019 passed in Civil Application No. 10003 of 2019. Thus, he has submitted that the petitioner is having an alternate remedy and the present petition may not be entertained. 8. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Marwari Balika Vdiyalaya v. Asha Srivastava and others, reported in (2019) SCC Online SC 408 and has submitted that the writ against the private school is maintainable. Thus, he has submitted that the present writ petition may not be rejected on the ground of non-maintainability. It is submitted that after passage of all these years, he may not be relegated to the Tribunal on the ground of alternate remedy. 9. Thus, he has submitted that the present writ petition may not be rejected on the ground of non-maintainability. It is submitted that after passage of all these years, he may not be relegated to the Tribunal on the ground of alternate remedy. 9. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the documents as pointed out by them are also perused. 10. From the aforenoted facts, it emerges that there are serious disputed question of facts with regard to the resumption of duties by the petitioner and the refusal on the part of the respondent-College in not allowing him to resume the duty. The record also reveals that the petitioner was issued various show cause notices asking him to resume the duty. The captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 20915 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner seeking direction against the respondent college for allowing him to resume the duty. By the order dated 12.11.2006, the petition was disposed of by directing the Director of Primary Education to see that the respondent College Authority shall allow the petitioner to resume the duty on 12.10.2006. Indubitably, the aforesaid order has been passed without hearing the respondent College. The writ petition was disposed of on 09.10.2006 by issuing such direction, thereafter, the respondents allowed the petitioner to resume the duty for three days. However, it is case of the petitioner that since he was not allowed to resume the duty after three days, he made a representation to allow him to resume the duty. The respondent-College has stated that after the petitioner was granted three days leave from 4.12.2006 to 6.12.2006, he did not resume on duties. Since he was not allowed to resume the duty, the captioned Special Civil Application No. 20915 of 2006 was revived on the note filed by the present petitioner. While issuing Rule on 07.02.2007, this Court has recorded the objection of the learned advocate for the respondent College about the non-maintainability of the present writ petition. The question of non-maintainability of the petition was left open as it was observed that the same requires detailed examination. It is also not in dispute that and it is admitted position that the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Gujarat Educational Institution Services Tribunal Act, 2006. The question of non-maintainability of the petition was left open as it was observed that the same requires detailed examination. It is also not in dispute that and it is admitted position that the petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Gujarat Educational Institution Services Tribunal Act, 2006. Section 11 of the aforesaid Act, reads as under: “Section 11: an employee aggrieved by an original order or appellate order or decision of the educational institution, which is concerned with the conditions of such employee as or, as the case may be, the educational institution, may, within a period of sixty days from the date of such order or decision, appeal to the tribunal.” 11. Thus, looking to the controversy and disputed question of facts, the allegations and the counter allegations between the present petitioner and the respondent College, this Court while exercising to its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot examine that whether the petitioner was not allowed to resume the duty by the respondent College or he has deliberately not joined after he had taken leave. The showcause notices dated 12.06.2006, 21.06.2006 and 04.07.2006 issued by the respondent College prima facie reflect that the petitioner was irregular in attending the college and he did not resume the duty. The receipt of the aforesaid notices is not disputed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the said notices are not required to be considered since in fact, the petitioner was on the contrary not allowed to resume the duty by the respondent College. It has also come on record that after the order dated 09.10.2006 passed in Special Civil Application No. 20915 of 2006 by this Court, the petitioner was allowed to work for three days. However, it is the case of the respondent college that again he did not resume the duty and on the contrary, vague allegations were made against the respondent college that they did not allow to resume the duty. The specific averments have been made by the respondent authorities in the affidavit dated 17.01.2007 more particularly in paragraph 15 that after the petitioner did not resume his duty after he was granted three days leave from 04.12.2006 to 06.12.2006. 12. The specific averments have been made by the respondent authorities in the affidavit dated 17.01.2007 more particularly in paragraph 15 that after the petitioner did not resume his duty after he was granted three days leave from 04.12.2006 to 06.12.2006. 12. In the circumstances, looking to the controversy between the present petitioner and the respondent college, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal would be the appropriate forum where all the disputed questions can be examined. 13. The contention raised by the learned advocate Mr. Gandhi about the relegating him to tribunal does not merit acceptance since as recorded hereinabove, the issue of non maintainability of the petition was kept open by this Court while issuing Rule vide order dated 7.2.2007. The reliance placed by the petitioner, on the judgment of the Marwari Balika Vdiyalaya(supra) will not rescue the present petitioner since in the case before the Supreme Court, the dispute pertained to teachers working in an unaided institution. The Supreme Court has specifically held that the teachers who are working in the government school or private school are paid government funds and are rendering public duty and thus they cannot be refused the remedy as the scope of writ of mandamus is very wide which must be easily available when it is found that the principles of natural justice are vioated. In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk as he is not connected with an public duties and the Respondent-College is an private unaided professional institute. 14. In the decision dated 09.07.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10003 of 2019 in the case of Trigun Chand Thakore v. State of Bihar & ors. the Apex Court has observed thus: “5. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed LPA No. 670 of 1999 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench die impugned order dated 21.01.2008 dismissed the LPA filed by the appellant and affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court has also placed reliance on Chandra Nath Thakur Vs. The Division Bench die impugned order dated 21.01.2008 dismissed the LPA filed by the appellant and affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court has also placed reliance on Chandra Nath Thakur Vs. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board & Ors., 1999 (1) PLJR 529 and held that a teacher of a privately managed school, even though financially aided by the State Government or the Board, cannot maintain a writ petition against the order of termination from service passed by the Management Committee. The Division Bench also pointed out that the consent order passed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10698 of 1994 cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court and does not make the Managing Committee “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, we do not find any ground to take a different view.” 15. It is held by the Supreme Court that a teacher of a privately managed school, even though financially aided by the State Government or the Board, cannot maintain a writ petition against the order of termination from service passed by the Management Committee. The petitioner has an alternate remedy under the Statute of Gujarat Educational Institution Service Tribunal Act, 2006 for challenging the action of the respondent for terminating the service. The tribunal can also examine the aforesaid disputed questions of fact. 16. In light of the foregoing observations and analysis, the present writ petitions fail. It will be open for the petitioner to challenge the impugned action of the respondent college before the Tribunal under Section 11 of the Gujarat Education Service Tribunal Act, 2006. It is clarified that in case the petitioner challenges his termination before the Tribunal, the period which is undergone during the pendency of the present petition, shall be ignored for the purpose of calculating the limitation as provided in Section 11 of the Gujarat Education Service Tribunal Act, 2006. Rule discharged. Registry to place a copy of this order in connected matter.