IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 1055 of 2003 Date of decision: 19.12.2008 State of H.P. and another ..Petitioners Versus Smt. Shashi Bijalwan and others ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.1: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate Per Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) State has appealed against the order dated 1.11.2002 of the then State Administrative Tribunal, whereby Original Application filed by respondent Shashi Bijalwan has been allowed and the promotion of respondent Devki Devi, as District Welfare Officer- cum-Probation Officer, has been set aside and also the rule, under which the said respondent Devki Devi was appointed, has been held to be ultra vires and consequently struck down. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 2. One of the grounds, on which the order has been challenged, is that the same is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the matter was required to be heard by a Division Bench of the learned Tribunal, as question of vires of Recruitment and Promotion Rules was involved, but it was heard and decided by a Single Bench. Point was raised before the learned Single Bench of the Tribunal that the matter was required to be heard by a Division Bench, but that was over-ruled with the observation that Rules similar to the Rules affecting the parties, were questioned in an earlier matter, decided by a Division Bench of the Tribunal and those rules had been struck down and, therefore, Single Bench was competent to hear the matter. 3. Admittedly, the Rules, which were the subject matter of consideration in the earlier matter, were different from the present rules, though they might have been similar. Similarity between two sets of rules did not give the jurisdiction to the Single Bench to hear and decide the matter. In this view of the matter, we are supported by a judgment of Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, 1997 SC 1125 (Para 98 at page 1156). Since the order of the tribunal is without jurisdiction, as the matter was required to be heard and decided by a Division Bench, instead of Single Bench, we allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 11.2.2002, passed by the learned tribunal in O.A. No. 1498 of 1991 and direct that the Original Application be 3 now heard by an appropriate Bench of this court, as the tribunal stands abolished. The Original Application, which is of the year 1991 and requires early disposal, is directed to be listed for final hearing before vacation. ( R. B. Misra ), J. December 19, 2008(K) ( Surjit Singh ), J.