JUDGMENT/ORDER VISHWAJITH SHETTY,J. - This intra court appeal is filed assailing the order dtd. 18/6/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.20085/2019. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal narrated in brief are, respondent no.4 was appointed as a part time lecturer in Political Science in appellant no.2-Institution in the year 1999. On 24/5/2004, a specific order regarding her appointment was passed by the appellant-Institution, and on 25/5/2006, yet another order of appointment was passed and thereafter she was transferred to another institution run by appellant no.1. On 7/3/2013, a communication was issued to respondent no.4 that her appointment should not be considered as a permanent appointment and she would be continued as a part time lecturer with a consolidated pay of Rs.9,700.00 and challenging the same, respondent no.4 had filed a revision petition under Sec. 131 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short, 'the Act'), and the revisional authority allowed the revision petition, set aside the order dtd. 7/3/2013 which changed the status of the employee from permanent to temporary and reserved liberty to the Management to take action in terms of Sec. 98 of the Act. The said order dtd. 20/3/2019 passed in Revision Petition No.20/2013 was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.20085/2019 by appellants/management and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide the order impugned has dismissed the writ petition and being aggrieved by the same, this intra court appeal is preferred. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the appointment of respondent no.4 was temporary and she was on probation. He submits that merely for the reason that she was continued in service even after completion of probation period, it cannot be said that she had a regular appointment in her favour. He submits that there should be a specific order to the said effect and unless such an order is passed, her appointment cannot be considered as regular appointment. In this regard, he has referred to Rule 29 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003. He submits that there should be a specific order to the said effect and unless such an order is passed, her appointment cannot be considered as regular appointment. In this regard, he has referred to Rule 29 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Collegiate Education) Rules, 2003. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of DURGABAI DESHMUKH MEMORIAL SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL & ANOTHER VS J.A.J. VASU SENA & ANOTHER - (2019)17 SCC 157 , G.S.RAMASWAMY & OTHERS VS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MYSORE STATE, BANGALORE - AIR 1966 SC 175 , and POORNAPRAJNA EDUCATIONAL CENTRE, BELUR VS PUSHPA - 2022 SCC Online Kar 362. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 has argued in support of the impugned order and submits that the order of appointment issued in the year 2006 would go to show that the appointment of respondent no.4 under the said order was a regular appointment and she was also subsequently transferred from one institution to another run by appellant no.1. He submits that if respondent no.4's appointment was not regular, it was not necessary for the appellant-Institution to issue the communication dtd. 7/3/2013 changing the status of respondent no.4 from permanency to temporary. He, accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. The learned Single Judge in the order impugned has extracted the appointment orders dtd. 24/5/2004 & 25/5/2006 issued in favour of respondent no.4 by the appellant-Institution. Having extracted the appointment orders, the learned Single Judge has observed that from a perusal of the said orders on their juxtaposition, in unmistakable terms they would indicate that the said orders are distinct to the effect that the first order was a contract appointment and the second was a regular appointment. The learned Single Judge has also observed that none of the conditions stipulated in the first order appears in the subsequent order and he has also observed that respondent no.4 is held entitled to all eligible and usual allowances that a regular employee is entitled to for similar post from time to time and respondent no.4 was also made liable for transfer from one institution to the other inter alia and it is under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has considered the appointment order of 2006 as a regular appointment. 7. 7. The status of respondent no.4 as a regular employee had continued thereafter until the communication dtd. 7/3/2013 was issued by the appellant-Institution. In the meanwhile, respondent no.4 was transferred from one institution to the another and in the transfer order she was described as a permanent employee and all allowances that were payable to the regular employee were granted to her. It is under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge has held that no specific order of confirmation of appointment after completion of the probation period was required to be passed and it is deemed that the appointment has been confirmed. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the revisional authority had reserved liberty to the appellant-Management to take action against respondent no.4-employee under Sec. 98 of the Act after following due procedure as laid down therein. We, therefore, find no good grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this writ petition. 8. The judgments on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the appellants have passed the appointment order dtd. 25/5/2006, a reading of which would go to show that the appointment of respondent no.4 was regular appointment. Under the circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.