IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2877 of 2007 ***** BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA, SON OF LATE NARSINGH SAHAY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- ASHOK NAGAR, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT PATNA. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, TELECOMMUNICATION HAVING HIS OFFICE IN SANCHAR BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM., DISTRICT PATNA HAVING HIS OFFICE IN TELEPHONE BHAWAN, ‘R’ BLOCK, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) IN THE OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, ‘R’ BLOCK, PATNA. 4. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PHONES (ADMINISTRATION) IN THE OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, DISTRICT TELEPHONE BHAWAN, ‘R’ BLOCK, PATNA. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (PHONES-II), RAJENDRA NAGAR, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, DISTRICT PATNA. 6. THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER (CASH) IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM DISTRICT TELEPHONE BHAWAN, ‘R’ BLOCK, PATNA. …. …. Respondents ----------- 11. 17.5.2010. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly stated that there has been notification under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, whereby B.S.N.L. has been brought within the net of the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Regard being had to the aforesaid subsequent - 2 - event and keeping in view the law laid down in I.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1125, validity of the Rule can be challenged before the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioner should challenge the constitutional validity of the Rule in question before the Tribunal and thereafter if circumstances so arise may approach this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Pawan/- (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Rakesh Kumar, J)