IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1643 of 2007 Date decision: 25.4.2008 Tula Ram ..Petitioner Versus H.P.Public Service Commission and others..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate For Respondent No.1: Mr. D.K.Khanna, Advocate For Respondent No.2: Mr. R.K.Bawa, Senior Advocate, with Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). The petitioner has approached this court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- i) The respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to get the paper of English and Economics Paper-II qua petitioner re-checked/re- evaluated. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 ii) The Respondent No. 1 may kindly be ordered to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview, in case, petitioner succeeds in the paper of English. iii) Respondent No. 2 may kindly be ordered to make appointment in pursuance of advertisement vide Annexure P-1 subject to the out-come of present Civil Writ Petition. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents that this is clearly a service matter and this Court should not entertain the same and the petitioners should be directed to approach the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order passed by this court in CWP No. 1712 of 2007, titled as Varun Singh Vs. H.P. Public Service Commission, wherein this court had gone into the question regarding the validity/correctness of the question paper of the preliminary examination paper for Himachal Administrative Service preliminary examination held in the year 2007. The order has been passed with the consent of the parties and there is nothing in the order which shows that this court had considered the objection of jurisdiction which has been specifically raised in the present writ petition. 3 We do not propose to enter into the merits of the allegations of the petitioner since according to us the petitioner would have been better advised to have first approach the learned Tribunal. The examination was conducted for selection to the Himachal Administrative Service. This is purely a service matter. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1125 and especially the observations in paras 93 and 99 of the said judgment, we dispose of this writ petition by directing the petitioner to first approach the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. We may make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner may raise all contentions raised in this petition before the learned Tribunal. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. April 25, 2008(K) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.