ORDER
K.R. Prasad Rao, J.
1. This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijapur Educational Appellate Tribunal No. V, dated 6-12-1999 dismissing E.A.T. Appeal No. 6 of 1996 filed by the revision petitioner.
2. The facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are briefly stated as follows:
The petitioner was appointed as Senior Tutor in the Department of Pharmacology, A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, on 7-5-1993 through its letter of appointment-Ex. D-1 on probation for a period of 12 months. The said order of appointment was issued by the Secretary on behalf of the Management of A1 Ameen Medical Trust, Bangalore. Under the terms of the appointment, the period of probation can be extended for a further period of 12 months if his work is found not satisfactory or his services may be terminated. One of the terms of the appointment order is that during his tenure of service he may, at any time, be transferredto any other, place of work maintained by A1 Ameen Medical Trust or A1 Ameen Charitable Fund Trust or any sister concern. The petitioner joined duty in the Al Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, on 19-5-1993 as Senior Tutor and he served at the said college till 28-7-1995. His probation period was not declared after the expiry of the period of one year and his two annual increments were also held up by respondent 1. On 25-7-1995 an incident of vulgar language abusing and manhandling of him by 8 to 10 non-teaching staff of the college occurred. This was followed by two more complaints lodged by the petitioner about the misconduct of the said persons on 27-7-1995 and 28-7-1995. The next day i.e., 29-7-1995 the petitioner was directed by the in charge Principal of the College to go on one month's compulsory leave with immediate effect. By another letter dated 30-8-1995 he was informed by respondent 2-Principal of the said College to extend his Earned Leave for a further period of 15 days. The petitioner then wrote to the Principal-respondent 2 that he is not willing to go on Earned Leave as he would need it later on and requested him to permit him to join his duty. Respondent 2 did not reply to the said letter of the petitioner when the petitioner met respondent 4-Head of the Department of Pharmacology, he did not allow him to join his duties. The petitioner was informed by respondent 4 that his leave has been extended for a further period of 1 month on oral instructions of in charge Principal Dr. J.M. Desai. When the petitioner met Dr. J.M. Desai, the in charge Principal he was told that his leave has been extended for a further period of one month on telephonic instructions from respondent 1. On 16-10-1995, respondent 2 gave a letter to the petitioner which stated that he is sending the petitioner to report to respondent 2- Administrator for taking further needful action. When he petitioner met respondent 1 at Bangalore on 18-10-1995 he was told that his services are terminated and that he can accept 3 months salary or work at A1 Ameen Hospital, Bangalore, for 3 months. Respondent 2 gave the petitioner a letter dated 26-10-1995 that he has been transferred to A1 Ameen Hospital, Bangalore, with the instructions to report there. But the petitioner could not understand whether his transfer was a regular process or it was only for a period of 3 months as told by respondent 1 on 18-10-1995. Hence petitioner addressed a letter dated 28-10-1995 to respondent 1 requesting him to clarify this point and also requesting him to sanction 56 days of Earned Leave at his credit on grounds of his family problems from 27-10-1995 to 21-12-1995. But respondent 1 did not reply to the said letter of petitioner in this, regard. But there was no reply by respondent 1 to this letter also. Again, petitioner wrote a letter reminding contents of his earlier two letters and also requesting him to sanction leave loss of pay from 22-12-1995 to 22-2-1996. Respondent 1 finally, replied by another order dated 29-12-1995 to the petitioner stating that he has remained absent unauthorisedly that his letters will not be taken cognizance of and he should not expect any response in future from that office. Respondent 1 has also written in the said letter that the petitioner would have been considered a staff member only if he had reported for duty to him at Bangalore after relief at Bijapur on 26-10-1995. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Educational Appellate Tribunal, Bijapur, by filing the appeal E.A.T. No. 6 of 1999 challenging his termination from the post of Senior Tutor at A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, and thereby affecting his conditions of service.
3. In the said appeal, the revision petitioner sought for a direction to respondent 1 to reinstate him to the post of Senior Tutor in the Pharmacology at A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, with back wages. He also sought for a direction to respondent 1 to declare his probationary period and to grant two yearly increments. He also sought for a direction to sanction his leave and other benefits.
4. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed their objections before the Educational Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') contending that the appeal is not maintainable since A1 Ameen Medical Trust, Bangalore, which is the Appointing Authority has not been made a party to the appeal. It is further contended by them that since A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, is affiliated to Karnatak University, Dharwad and governed under the provisions of Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 who is the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in view of Section 1(3)(iv)(d) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Alternatively, they contended that the appeal is not maintainable since there is no order of dismissal or removal of the petitioner from service nor there is any order reducing his rank passed by the Management of the Trust. They also clarified that the probation of the petitioner has not been declared since his performance in the College was not satisfactory. He did not prove himself to be efficient and sincere in serving the institution, but was creating problems. There were complaints against him from Teaching Staff, Non-Teaching Staff and also from students and his relations were not cordial. So, in the interest of petitioner himself and in the interest of the institution, he was asked to proceed on leave for the period mentioned in the appeal memo and subsequently he was transferred from Bijapur to Bangalore on 26-10-1995 with the instructions to report at A1 Ameen Hospital, Bangalore. But the petitioner did not join duty at Bangalore and remained absent unauthorisedly. Therefore, the Administrator of A1 Ameen Medical Trust, Bangalore, has written a letter dated 29-12-1995 stating that the revision petitioner is not the Member of the Staff of Hospital. Respondents 1 and 2, therefore, contended that the revision petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him in the appeal before the Tribunal.
5. The Appellate Tribunal, after holding an enquiry by giving opportunity to both parties to adduce their evidence and on appreciation of the said evidence adduced and consideration of the various contentions urged, dismissed the appeal by the impugned order holding that the appeal is not maintainable, as the A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, is affiliated to Karnatak University, Dharwar and is governed under the provisions of Karnataka State Universities' Act, 1976 and therefore the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 are not applicable to the said institution as is clarified under the provisions of Section 1(3)(iv)(d) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. The Appellate Tribunalalso came to the conclusion that the appeal is not maintainable since there is no order of removal or dismissal or reduction in the rank of the petitioner by the Management of A1 Ameen Medical Trust, Aggrieved by the said order of the dismissal of the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the petitioner in person and the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. The petitioner has also submitted his written arguments raising various contentions. Before going into the merits of the matter, I find it necessary to consider the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents on the maintainability of these proceedings before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 and the correctness of the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that the appeal is not maintainable.
8. Section 1(3) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 clarifies that the Act applies to all educational institutions and tutorial institutions in the State except,
'xxx xxx xxx(iv) insofar as the matters pertaining to colleges and institutions are dealt within.-
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Central Act CII of 1956);
the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 28 of 1976).
Thus Section 1(3)(iv)(d) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 makes it clear that the provisions of the Act are not applicable in respect of the medical colleges and other institutions named therein, insofar as the matters pertaining to medical colleges and institutions dealt within the Karnataka State Universities Act. 1976'.
9. It is an admitted fact that previously Al Ameen Medical College, Bijapur. was governed by the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 and now all the Medical Colleges are being governed by Rajiv Gandhi University Act, Bangalore, since 1996. It is therefore clear that A1 Ameen Medical College is established and administered by an University established by law. The definition of private educational institution given in Section 2(27) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 is given as follows:
' '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 any local authority or any other authority designated or sponsored by the Central Government;
(b) established and administered by any University established by law;
(c) giving, providing or imparting only religious instruction but not any other instruction; or
(d) imparting instruction for which there is no approved syllabi or course of studies or Government or University Examination'.
Thus, it is clear that A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, which is, established by a Private Management of Trust is governed by the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. According to the definition of private educational institution given in Section 2(27) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 any educational institution imparting education referred to in Section 3, established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons falls within that definition, but it 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; or (d) imparting instruction for which there is no approved syllabi or course of studies or Government or University Examination. Since Al Ameen Medical College is a College established and maintained by the private management of the trust and is administered by the Rajiv Gandhi University it falls within the meaning of, the private educational institution. Even according to the definition of the private educational institution given under Section 2(d) of the Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975, all colleges affiliated to the University fall within the said definition and they are governed by the provisions of the said Act. Now, it is found from the definition of private educational institution given under Section 2(27) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, colleges imparting any type of education referred to in Section 3 of the Act viz., general education, professional education, medical education, technical education, commerce education and special education at all levels established and administered or maintained by any person or body of persons are to be considered as private educational institutions.
This Court has held in a decision in the case of Pushpa v Kittur Rani Channamma Memorial Committee, that 'the colleges affiliated to the University are now governed under the said Act as they come within the definition of 'private educational institution' under Section 2(d), but the Act is not enforceable against minority institutions. Since it is found that there is no change in law, under the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, the said provisions of the Act are applicable in respect of the employees of a private Medical College affiliated to Rajiv Gandhi University. Since, there is no specific provision either under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 providing a remedy for an employee, against whomdisciplinary action is taken by the management, in my view, the provisions of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 are applicable to the employees of A1 Ameen Private Medical College, Bijapur, which is a Private Medical College. So, the provisions of Section 1(3)(iv)(a) and (d) of the Act are not a bar for the applicability of the provisions of the Act in respect of the disciplinary action taken against an employee of the said college by the Management. I, therefore, find that the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the provisions of the Act are not attracted to, the employees of the said College and that the appeal is not maintainable, is clearly erroneous.
10. It must be now seen whether the appeal filed by the present revision petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal under the provisions of Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 is maintainable in the absence of an order of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank of the petitioner, passed by the Management of the Trust.
11. It is the grievance of the revision petitioner that though under the appointment order-Ex. D-1 issued to him the period of probation is fixed as one year, his probation period has not been declared after the completion of the said period of one year from the date of joining his service in the post of Senior Tutor in the Department of Pharmacology at A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, from 19-5-1993, in spite of the fact that there were no reports of unsatisfactory work/conduct against him during the period of probation. It is further contended by him that though the terms of the appointment stipulated for extension of probation period for another one year the said term and condition of the appointment order cannot be enforced as it is contrary to Rule 7 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Rules, 1978 which permits extension of probation period for not more than 6 months where the work/conduct during the period of initial period of probation is unsatisfactory. Since his probation period has been unlawfully extended by another 9 months by 1st and 2nd respondents and his two, annual increments were also held up by them, he prayed for a direction to 1st respondent to declare his probation period and to sanction him the said annual increment due from 19-5-1994 and 19-5-1995 and to pay him the arrears of salary. It is his further case that though he has applied for sanction of 56 days E.L. on 28-10-1995, 13-11-1995 and 24-12-1995 the 1st respondent has not sanctioned the said E.L. without any justifiable reasons. He, therefore, prayed for a direction to 1st respondent to sanction the said E.L. and to pay him leave salary. It is his further claim that he has worked as part-time lecturer in A1 Ameen Dental College during the months of September, October and November 1994 for which he has not been paid any part-time teaching salary. He therefore, sought for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to release the part-tune teaching salary to him. He further claimed that respondents 1 and 2 have not sanctioned T.A. and D.A. for his Trip to Bangalore and back to meet respondent 1 as directed by respondent 2 on 16-10-1995 and therefore respondents 1 and 2 are liable to sanction T.A. and D.A. for the said Trip. But all the above prayers made by the revision petitioner in his appeal do not fall within the scope of the reliefswhich can be granted under the provisions of Section 94(1) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 by the Educational Appellate Tribunal. Section 94 of the Act makes it clear that only against an order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank passed against any Teacher or other employee of a private educational institution, an appeal is maintainable and the said appeal is to be filed within 3 months from the date of communication of the order. So, there is no scope to grant the above reliefs of declaration of probation period or direction for payment of leave salary, release of increments and arrears of salary, sanction of T.A. and D.A. etc., by the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act and the orders passed by the employer in respect of the above matters cannot be challenged in an appeal. So, I find that none of the above said reliefs prayed for by the revision petitioner can be granted to him under the provisions of Section 94 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. It is no doubt contended by the revision petitioner that under the provisions of Section 96(3) of the Act, the Educational Appellate Tribunal is empowered to grant reliefs of reinstatement of the employee on such terms and conditions, if any, including payment of salary allowances and costs, if it is satisfied from the material on record that the order passed is arbitrary, perverse, mala fide, violative of the rules of natural justice or not sustainable on any other ground.
But, as already pointed out by me, the order passed which is referred in sub-section (3) of Section 96 of the Act must be one relating to the order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank as contemplated under the provisions of Section 94 of the Act. So, unless it is shown by the revision petitioner that any such order viz., removal, dismissal or reduction in rank has been passed against him by respondents 1 and 2, he is not entitled to any reliefs relating to payment of salary, allowances etc. In the present case, admittedly no such order of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank has been passed against the revision petitioner by respondents 1 and 2. On the other hand, the only order that has been passed against the revision petitioner is one of his transfer to A1 Ameen Hospital, Bangalore, as per the transfer order-Ex. P-12. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that since he was appointed to the post of 'Senior Tutor' which is a teaching post in the Department of Pharmacology in Al Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, he is not liable to be transferred to a non-teaching post to work in Al Ameen Hospital, Bangalore, and the said transfer amounts to termination of his appointment as 'Senior Tutor' in A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, particularly when the transfer order does not indicate that he is posted to an equivalent cadre post in A1 Ameen Hospital, Bangalore. In support of the above contention, he relied upon the communication sent to him as per Ex. P-15 by the 1st respondent dated 29-12-1995 informing him that he would have been considered as a Staff Member if only he had reported for duty to the Administrator at Bangalore after relieve at Bijapur on 26-10-1995 and that the Principal of A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, is being informed of his not reporting for duty after getting himself relieved till that date. This letter-Ex. P-15, dated 29-12-1995 was sent to the revision petitioner intimating that since he has not reported at A1Ameen Hospital, Bangalore, in furtherance of the transfer order dated 26-10-1995 sent by the Principal (Ex. P-12), the said conduct of him amounts to disobedience and that his remaining absent ever since from 26-10-1995 is unauthorised. According to the revision petitioner, the transfer order-Ex. P-12 and the communication in the letter-Ex. P-15 clearly amount to termination of his services as senior Tutor in A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, and therefore he is entitled to challenge the said order before the Appellate Tribunal. It is further contended by him that he stood disconnected from his work as Senior Tutor without the approval of the Medical Council of India, Director of Medical Education and Karnatak University, all State functionaries and so the above action taken by respondents 1 and 2 amounts to illegal, arbitrary and mala fide action and the said order is therefore, liable to be set aside and he is entitled to an order of reinstatement to the original post of Senior Tutor in A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur with all consequential benefits, arrears of salary etc., under the provisions of Section 96(3) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. In reply to these contentions, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 pointed out that under Clause 7 of the terms and conditions of the order of appointment-Ex. D-1 issued to the revision petitioner, he is liable to be transferred to any other place of work maintained by A1 Ameen Medical Trust or A1 Ameen Charitable Fund Trust or any sister concern and that the revision petitioner has agreed for the said condition by executing a bond as per Ex. D-3 at the time of joining service. On perusal of Ex. D-1, it is found that there is such a term and condition in the order of appointment. The revision petitioner has specifically agreed for the said condition which reads as follows:--
'That during your tenure of service, you may, at any time be transferred to any other place of work maintained by A1 Ameen Medical Trust or A1 Ameen Charitable Fund Trust or any sister concern'.
It is, therefore, not open to the revision petitioner to contend that he is not liable to be transferred to the Hospital maintained by A1 Ameen Medical Trust. His further contention that he must be posted only to a Teaching Cadre post also cannot be accepted since there is no such specific term and condition in the order of appointment-Ex. D-1. Since the revision petitioner is a Medical Graduate, he is not entitled to contend that he cannot be posted to work as a regular Doctor in the above Hospital. Further, when the revision petitioner knows that only one Medical College is being run by the Trust and the other institutions run by them are hospitals, he cannot make any grievance of his transfer from the Medical College to the Hospital particularly, when he agreed for the condition that he can be transferred to any institution run by the A1 Ameen Trust. I do not see any merit in the contention of the revision petitioner that he is not given a specific place of posting in the Hospital in the Transfer Order-Ex. P-12, as he could have been informed of the duties entrusted to him only on his reporting for duty in the said Hospital. So, it is premature to contend that the posting in the Hospital is not of the same cadre of the post given to him in the A1 Ameen MedicalCollege, Bijapur. There is nothing to indicate in the Transfer Order-Ex. P-12 that the posting in the said Hospital will not be of equal cadre or of equal pay of the post which he was holding in the Medical College. On a careful perusal of the letter-Ex. P. 15 addressed to the revision petitioner, I find that it is no where mentioned in the said order that his services are terminated and that he is removed from his service. There is also nothing on record to show that the revision petitioner is reduced in rank. In fact, it is clarified by R.W. 1-Basanagouda, who was the Principal of A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, in his evidence that the letter-Ex. P-15 does not reveal that the service of the revision petitioner were terminated. He has also explained the circumstances under which revision petitioner was transferred from the medical college run by the Trust at Bijapur to the Hospital run by the Trust. According to him, the revision petitioner was not efficient as a Tutor. His relations with the staff of the College both Teaching and Non-Teaching were not cordial. His behaviour with them was also not normal. He was quarrelsome and he used to quarrel with the students while conducting the classes. It is also in his evidence that, as the confidential report in respect of the revision petitioner disclosed that his relations with the public were bad, his behaviour with the students was also bad, his probationary period came to be extended during January 1995. He further stated that one Dr. J.N. Neogi, Head of Department of Pharmacology submitted his confidential letter before the Principal of their College, stating that the presence of the revision petitioner in the Department was harmful and detrimental to the College as a whole and in the said letter he has requested the Principal to take action against the revision petitioner. According to him, at no point of time, there was any report by the Head of the Department of Pharmacology to the effect that the revision petitioner was efficient and his conduct was satisfactory and no recommendation was made by the Principal of the College to the Administrator for declaring that the revision petitioner completed his probationary period satisfactorily. He further narrated that due to the above attitude of the revision petitioner, some tension was created in the Department and College during the year 1995, and thereafter, the revision petitioner was asked to go on long leave, with a view to see that the tension would come down. First he was granted one month leave and thereafter it came to be extended by another 15 days. After sending the revision petitioner on long leave, he (this witness) did not feel that the situation would be normal in case of his continuation in the College. Therefore, ultimately the Administrator transferred the revision petitioner to Al Ameen Medical Trust Hospital, Bangalore on 26-10-1995 and on the same day he was relieved of his duties. According to him, the said transfer was in the interests of College and also in revision petitioner's his own interests. He also explained in his evidence that the revision petitioner was neither dismissed nor terminated from his services.
In support of the above facts narrated by this witness, the letters of correspondence and complaints received against the revision petitioner are produced and marked in evidence. Ex, D-6 is the confidential report sent by Dr. J.N. Neogi, Professor and Head of Pharmacology, A1 AmeenMedical College, Bijapur, to the Principal of that College dated 10-1-1995 stating that the revision petitioner is not amenable to discipline and his behaviour towards his colleagues and superior further deteriorated and, there is no improvement in his teaching capability. He also narrated in this letter that on 7-1-1995, the revision petitioner came late to the department at 2.40 p.m. and at that time he did not allow him to put his signature in the Attendance Register and asked him to apply for Casual Leave. He further narrated that the revision petitioner made a false accusation against another duty Dr. Mrs. Sobha Huilgol, Tutor, that she has signed Attendance Register for 4-1-1995, a day earlier. In spite of his refuting the said allegation, the revision petitioner argued with him raising his voice and shouted like a mad man abusing him and asked him to get out of the room of Head of the Department. He, therefore, recommended for taking action against him under Clause 12 of the Terms of Appointment for Indiscipline and Gross Misconduct. It is further mentioned in this letter that it is not the first instance of such behaviour of the revision petitioner like a mentally imbalanced person. He expressed his opinion in the said letter that the revision petitioner serving is no useful to the Department, on the other hand, his presence is harmful to the Department and detrimental to the College as a whole. Ex. D-7 is another confidential letter dated 7-2-1995 addressed by the same Professor and HOD Pharmacology to the Principal stating that after observation for last six months he found that there is no further improvement in the revision petitioner. Ex. D-8 is the Confidential Report sent by him to the Principal stating that from his observation in the last 2 months, he is of the opinion that the revision petitioner is still not amenable to discipline and there is no improvement in his abnormal behaviour and his teaching abilities. Ex. D-9 is a letter dated 23-2-1995 addressed by the Principal to the Professor, Head of the Department of Pharmacology, calling for the attendance and information regarding number of classes Practical taken by the revision petitioner during the months of January and February 1995 and to send his comment regarding the behaviour and performance of him during that period. Ex. D-11 is a complaint dated 24-7-1995 sent by the Associate Professors, Lecturers, Teacher and other employees of the Medical College in all 12 of them to the Principal of the College against the revision petitioner stating that he picked up quarrels with the Staff Members, keeps broken glass beer bottles in his custody causing apprehension in the Department.
He mismanages the class whenever classes are assigned to him which end up with quarrel with the students in the Department. Ex. D-12 is a confidential report of enquiry dated 16-9-1995 submitted by the Professor Mr. S.R. Choudhury, Enquiry Officer against the revision petitioner on the complaint dated 5-8-1995 lodged against the revision petitioner by all the Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff Members of Pharmacology Department of A1 Ameen Medical College expressing his opinion that for the greater interests of the Institution the exit of the revision petitioner is a 'sine qua non' from this College. Thus, respondents 1 and 2 have produced enough material before the Appellate Tribunal to show that there are no mala fides on the part of the Management of the Trust either in transferring the revision petitioner to the Hospital run by the Trust or in extending his probationary period. The revision petitioner, no doubt, produced 3 certificates-Exs. P-3 to P-5, dated 27-12-1993, 22-9-1994 and 25-10-1994 issued by P.W. 2-Dr. M.C. Jamadar, M.D., wherein it is certified that he is sincere and hard worker and dedicated in his duties and quite intelligent and has good command over English language and that he has kept good inter-personal relations. But, in his cross-examination P.W. 2 admitted that he was not entrusted to look after the performance of the revision petitioner or any of the members of Teaching Staff and he is not the Head of the Department of the revision petitioner. He further admitted that he was not authorised to issue such certificates. So, the revision petitioner is not entitled to contend that on the basis of the said certificates issued by a person, who is not the Head of the Department, his probationary period is to be declared. On the other hand, as it is found that the Head of the Department of Pharmacology the Department in which he was working as Senior Tutor, has reported about the unsatisfactory work, conduct and behaviour of the revision petitioner in the above referred confidential reports sent by him to the Principal of the College, it has to be held that respondent 1-Administrator of A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, was justified in extending the probation period of the revision petitioner. In view of the above said material placed on record and the evidence given by the Principal of Al Ameen Medical College, Bijapur R.W. 1-Basanagouda explaining the circumstances under which the above action was taken against the revision petitioner, I am unable to hold that the above action taken by the Management of the Trust is vitiated by any mala fides or that there are no justifiable grounds in transferring the revision petitioner to the Hospital run by the Trust. Transfer of an employee by his employer is an incidence of service. The Court will not generally, interfere with transfer of employees as it is within the Management's discretion and exigency, unless mala fides are alleged against the authorities. Where a Teacher accepts the condition that he would be liable to transfer to any institutions run by its Managing Committee, then, it could not be assailed. In the instant case, as it is found that the revision petitioner accepted the condition of the terms of the appointment order-Ex. D-1 that he would be liable for transfer to any Institution run by the Managing Committee of Al Ameen Trust, the order of transfer cannot be assailed by him. Further, as it is also found that the transfer of the revision petitioner has been effected in the interests of the College and in the interests of the revision petitioner himself, no mala fides can be attributed to the Management in passing the said transfer order as per Ex. D-2 against him, since there is nothing to indicate in the Transfer Order-Ex. D-2 that the services of the revision petitioner are terminated from his post of Senior Tutor in A1 Ameen Medical College, Bijapur, I am unable to accept the contention of the revision petitioner that the said transfer order amounts to termination of his services. The contention of the revision petitioner that a transfer cannot be effected without the approval of the authorities i.e., MedicalCouncil of India, Director of Medical Education and the Karnatak University, is without any merit as there is no such condition in the order of appointment-Ex. D-1 or under any of the Service Rules governing the employees of the A1 Ameen Trust. It is relevant to note at this stage that the order of appointment-Ex. D-l has been issued to the revision petitioner by the Management of the A1 Ameen Medical Trust and it is signed by the Administrator of the Trust. But the revision petitioner has not impleaded A1 Ameen Trust represented by its Managing Committee as a party to the appeal filed by him. In the absence of the said necessary party, no relief can be granted to the revision petitioner in these proceedings. Thus, it is found that the revision petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him in the present proceedings and the appeal filed by him is not maintainable for the reliefs claimed therein before the Appellate Tribunal. Though the revision petitioner submitted in his written arguments that he is entitled to a relief of writ of mandamus against the respondents in respect of the prayers sought for by him, in the present revision petition, the said submission cannot be accepted, as the present proceeding is a revision petition against the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, but not a writ petition. It is also found that no action has been, taken so far against the revision petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report, submitted before the Management against him either terminating his services or passing an order of removal or reduction in rank. In the circumstances, I find that the appeal filed by the revision petitioner is 'premature' and no relief can be granted to the revision petitioner at this stage in this revision petition.
11-A. For all the above reasons, I find no merit in the present revision petition.
12. This revision petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.