WA 367/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.GOSWAMI (Amitava Roy, J) Heard Mr B Pathak, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr AK Dasgupta , learned counsel for the respondent/ writ petitioner. The instant appeal has been directed against the judgment and order date d 9.3.2009 rendered in WP(C) No. 2942/06 directing the appellants herein to cons ider the case of the respondent/ writ petitioner for promotion along with other eligible candidates/ employees within a time frame of three months as mentioned therein. The respondent/ writ petitioner had approached this Court with the grie vance that he had been unjustifiably denied consideration for promotion by the a ppellant Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, hereinafter referred to as ’th e BSNL’) prior to his superannuation from service under it on 31.3.2002. The res pondent/ writ petitioner who had joined the service of the Indian Post & Telegra ph Department, Govt. of India initially was brought within the fold of BSNL foll owing its creation and served it as its employee till his retirement on the afor ementioned date. In the writ petition he impleaded the Union of India as well as the BSNL and its authorities as respondents. In the instant appeal the appellants, amongst others, have raised a plea of bar under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 to the adjudic ation embarked upon by this Court vis-à-vis the issues raised in the writ petiti on. Mr Pathak while reiterating above has submitted that as at all relevant time s after the institution of the writ petition the BSNL had been brought within th e purview of the Act in terms of Section 29 thereof, the same ought to have been transferred to the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwa hati for disposal on merits. In view of the bar under Section 14 of the Act, Mr Pathak has urged that the determination made by the impugned judgment and order is non-est in law and, therefore, is liable to be adjudged as such. This Court in order to respond to the aforesaid plea requested Mr A Dasg upta, learned senior counsel for the respondent/ writ petitioner to address it i n this regard. Mr Dasgupta in his usual fairness has submitted with reference to the decision of the Apex Court in L. Chandrakumar -vs- Union of India & Ors., ( 1997) 3 SCC 261 that in keeping with the letter and spirit of the aforementioned provisions of the Act the Tribunals thereunder have been acknowledged as Courts of first instance in respect of the service matters for which they have been co nstituted. In view of the grievance of the respondent/ writ petitioner sought to be redressed in the writ petition and the bar of Section 14 of the Act vis-à-vis t he same, the BSNL being within the ambit of the applicability of the provisions thereof, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the adjudication of the grievance raised by the writ petitioner by this Court has to be adjudged as non-est in la w and on facts. It appears to us that the bar and the consequence thereof vis-à-vis the writ proceeding had not been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge a t any point of time. Be that as it may, the same does not in the teeth thereof v alidate the adjudication on merits. On a totality of the considerations as above, we are of unhesitant opini on that the impugned judgment and order is unsustainable in law and on facts and is, thus, interfered with. While setting aside the same, we transfer the procee dings in hand to the file of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhat i Bench, Guwahati with a request to it for disposal on merits. It is made clear that this Court has not offered any comment on the merits of the rival contentio ns of the parties and that the learned Tribunal would proceed with the adjudicat ion of the issues on merit without being influenced by any observation made in t he judgment and order set at naught in the instant appeal. No costs.