CWP No. 880 of 1992 1.7.2008 Present: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl.A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy.A.G. for the respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India for respondents No. 3 & 4. The subject matter of the present petition is a service matter as defined under Section 3 (q) of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The service matters at the first instance are to be adjudicated upon by the State Administrative Tribunal as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others (1997) 3 SCC-261, which reads thus: “In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2 (d) of Article 323-A and clause 3 (d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other Courts and Tribunals may per form a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323-B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like Courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5 (6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated.” In view of this definite law laid down in L. Chandra Kumar’s case, the writ petition is not maintainable. Consequently, the same is dismissed as not maintainable. It is open for the petitioner to pursue his remedy in an appropriate forum. (Rajiv Sharma), J. July 1, 2008. (GR)