ORDER : 1. Petitioner filed this petition seeking for quashing of Order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Education Appellate Tribunal at D.K. Mangaluru (for short 'the Tribunal ') in E.A.T No. 3 of 2023, thereby holding that the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act is maintainable. 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as follows. 3. The respondent was appointed as a Warden in the hostel by name Rev. Chennappa Uttangi Hostel run by the petitioner-Society. The respondent was terminated from service after holding due enquiry as per law, for the misconduct committed by him. 4. The respondent preferred an appeal under Section 94 read with Section 96 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act' ) along with an application to stay the execution and operation of the order of termination under Section 96(3)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal refused to grant an interim order. 5. The respondent aggrieved by the rejection of stay application, preferred a writ petition in W.P. No.335 of 2024, which was disposed of with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within three months and until then, the interim order was continued. 6. The Tribunal framed issues and additional issues. The additional issue is with regard to the maintainability of the appeal, which was raised by the petitioner- Society at the initial stage. The petitioner contended that the respondent is not an employee of the Educational Institution and that the Hostel is a separate entity. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. 7. The Tribunal held that the appeal is maintainable vide Order dated 24.08.2024. Hence, this writ petition. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's Institution does not fall within the definition of an Educational Institution as defined under the provisions of the Act. Hence, the provisions of Act are not applicable to the case on hand. He submits that the Hostel run by the petitioner-Society is a separate entity and it is being maintained for the benefit of all the Institutions coming under the Karnataka Christian Educational Society (Registered). Hence, the provisions of Act are not applicable to the case on hand. He submits that the Hostel run by the petitioner-Society is a separate entity and it is being maintained for the benefit of all the Institutions coming under the Karnataka Christian Educational Society (Registered). He submits that the object of the Society, as stated in the Memorandum of Association, particularly, Object No.3(c) is to build, maintain and run hostel for men, women, scholars and students. The said aspect was not properly considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the writ petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner-Institution falls within the definition of an Educational Institution and the provisions of the Act are applicable to the petitioner- Society. He submits that the petitioner-Society terminated the respondent from service and the respondent aggrieved by the order of termination preferred an appeal under Section 92 of the Act. The appeal filed by the respondent is maintainable before the Education Appellate Tribunal. The order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working as a Warden in the Hostel run by the petitioner-Society and the respondent was terminated from service. The respondent aggrieved by the order of termination preferred an appeal under Section 94 read with Section 96 of the Act. 13. The petitioner appeared and filed a statement of objections. The Tribunal framed the issues and additional issues. The additional issue framed was regarding the maintainability of the appeal under Section 94 of the Act. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties held that the appeal filed by the respondent is maintainable and the provisions of the Act are applicable to the petitioner-Society. 14. In order to consider the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, particularly, the definitions of " educational Institution ", " employee ", and " private educational institution " which read as follows: " 2. 14. In order to consider the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to examine the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, particularly, the definitions of " educational Institution ", " employee ", and " private educational institution " which read as follows: " 2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (14) "Educational institution" means any institution imparting education referred to in section 3 and includes a private educational institution but does not include an institution under the direct management of the University or of the Central Government or a tutorial institution;" (15) "employee" means a person employed in an educational institution". (27) " Private Educational Institution means any educational institution imparting education referred to in section 3, established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons, but does not include an educational institution: (a) established and administered or maintained by the Central Government or the State Government or any local authority or any other authority designated or sponsored by the Central Government or the State Government; (b) established and administered by any University established by law; (c) giving, providing or imparting only religious instruction, but not any other instruction; (d) imparting instruction for which there is no approved syllabi or course of studies or Government or University Examination." 15. Sub-section (14) of Section 2 of the Act defines Educational Institution to mean any institution imparting education referred to in Section 3 and includes a private educational institution but does not include an institution under the direct management of the University or of the Central Government or a tutorial institution. 16. Section 3 of the Act deals with the Regulation of Education, according to which, the State Government may subject to sub-section (3) of Section 1, regulate general education, professional education, medical education, technical education, commerce education and special education at all levels in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 17. "Educational Institution" means institution imparting education. Admittedly, from the perusal of the Memorandum of Association, it is clear that the petitioner is not imparting any education. The object of the petitioner-Society is to build, maintain and run hostels for men and women scholars/students and for the training of persons for the Ministry of the Church, both ordained and lay and to develop it as a centre of higher theological study and research to the best possible extent. The object of the petitioner-Society is to build, maintain and run hostels for men and women scholars/students and for the training of persons for the Ministry of the Church, both ordained and lay and to develop it as a centre of higher theological study and research to the best possible extent. Thus, the petitioner-Society does not fall within the definition of Educational Institution as defined under Section 2(14) of the Karnataka Education Act. 18. As per Section 2(15) of the Act, the expression " Employee " means a person employed in an Educational Institution. As observed above, the petitioner-Society is not an Educational Institution. Hence, the petitioner does not fall with the definition of employee under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act. 19. Section 2(27), which defines private educational institution , enumerates that any educational institution imparting education established and administered or maintained by any person or body of person, but does not include an education institution (c) giving, providing or imparting any religious instruction, but not any other instruction, or imparting instruction for which there is no approved syllabi or course of studies. 20. Admittedly, the petitioner-Society has been imparting, providing or giving only religious instruction but not any other instruction. Moreover, there is no approved syllabi or course of studies. Therefore, clauses (c) and (d) of Section 2(27) of Act squarely applies to the petitioner-Society. 21. In the circumstances, the petitioner-Society do not fall under the purview of Private Educational Institution as defined under Section 2(27) of the Act. 22. The Tribunal, without considering these aspects, has proceeded to pass the impugned order holding that the appeal filed by the respondent is maintainable. 23. As observed above, the petitioner-Society does not fall within the definition of Educational Institution, as the petitioner-Society is not imparting any education. Hence, the appeal filed by the respondent is not maintainable. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is arbitrary and erroneous and hence, same is liable to be quashed. 24. In view of the above discussion, I would proceed to pass the following order: ORDER: (I) The writ petition is allowed. (II) The impugned Order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Education Appellate Tribunal at D.K. Mangaluru in E.A.T. No.3 of 2023, vide Annexure 'A' is hereby quashed and consequently, the appeal in E.A.T. No.3 of 2023 is dismissed as not maintainable. (II) The impugned Order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Education Appellate Tribunal at D.K. Mangaluru in E.A.T. No.3 of 2023, vide Annexure 'A' is hereby quashed and consequently, the appeal in E.A.T. No.3 of 2023 is dismissed as not maintainable. (III) Liberty is reserved to the respondent to challenge the impugned order in an appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (IV) If the respondent avails such a remedy, before the appropriate authority, the said appropriate authority, without considering the limitation, shall proceed with the matter on merits and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.