1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.4629 of 2006 Ravindra C. Kokil Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents With Writ Petition No.4868 of 2006 Vijay Namdev Jagtap Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents With Writ Petition No.6890 of 2006 Rajesh Maruti Pawar Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mrs.Lata B. Patne for petitioners. Mr.R.D.Rane, Govt.Pleader for resp.nos.1 to 4. Mr.M.B.Mehere for resp.nos.5 and 6. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. December 12, 2006. P.C. . The grievance raised in these petitions pertains to the non-selection / non-appointment to the post of R.T.Field Worker and the process of recuitment is undertaken by the respondent nos.2 and 4. Undoubtedly on selection of these posts they form a State cadre and are placed under the concerned Zilla Parishads. Even in the earlier round some of 2 the petitioners had approached MAT in O.A. No.105 of 2004. . In the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1125) (AIR 1997 SC 1125) (AIR 1997 SC 1125) it has been clearly held that the Administrative Tribunal is the Court of first jurisdiction for which it has been created under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the decisions of the Tribunal are challengeable in writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before a Division Bench of this Court. . We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioners must approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for redressal of their grievance which has been raised before us. . The petitions are disposed off with liberty to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)