1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7845/09 Sushil Kumar vs. Government of India & Ors. Date of order : 10/7/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Hanuman Choudhary for the petitioner. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Inspector Central Excise pursuant to Combined Graduate Level Examination in response to advertisement issued by Staff Selection Commission (Northern Reason). Along with the application, he enclosed the certificate, which was not accepted as valid. The petitioner by the aforesaid application is seeking appointment on the post of Inspector, Central Excise. Contention of the petitioner is that despite availability of remedy before Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, a writ of mandamus would be maintainable before this Court because no order as such has been passed by the respondents so far and that the petitioner is seeking appointment with the Government of India and is presently seeking employment with the Government of India and therefore the writ petition should be entertained. 2 Having regard to the definition of service matters as contained in Section 2(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act and the observations made by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in para 93 of the judgement passed in L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.-AIR 1997 SC 1125, I am not inclined to uphold that contention. The petitioner should first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. The writ petition is therefore dismissed being not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/