THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.4739 OF 2009 Dated: 21.10.2009 Between: The Gram Panchayat – Khanapur, Adilabad Dist., rep.by its Sarpanch Sri A.Srinivas …. Petitioner And 1. Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad., and 2 others. …. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.4739 OF 2009 ORDER: The 3rd respondent herein working as Junior Assistant in Luxettipet Gram Panchayat, Adilabad District was posted to Khanapur Gram Panchayat in the existing vacancy vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 26.01.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed by Khanapur Gram Panchayat contending inter alia that the impugned order is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.54, PR & RD (Pts.II) Department, dated 4.2.1999 which prohibits posting of the Gram panchayat personnel in their native villages. It is alleged by the petitioner that the 3rd respondent is a native of Khanapur Gram panchayat and therefore his posting as Junior Assistant at Khanapur Gram Panchayat is illegal. It is also contended that the 3rd respondent while working at Khanapur Gram Panchayat during the years 2004-2006 as a Bill Collector had indulged in misappropriation of Gram panchayat funds to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- and therefore reposting of the 3rd respondent to Khanapur Gram Panchayat is against public interest and there is also likelihood of tampering of the records. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent denying the allegation that he is a native of Khanapur Gram Panchayat. It is stated that as per his service register he is a native of Dongargoan village, Gudihatnoor Mandal, Adilabad District and therefore the bar under G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 4.2.1999 is not attracted. The alleged misappropriation of funds by the 3rd respondent has also been denied and it is stated that he is ready to face any enquiry and the impugned order dated 13.2.2009 posting him to Khanapur Gram Panchayat does not suffer from any error. Heard both sides. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the 3rd respondent is an employee of the State Government and therefore the State Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985 shall exercise the jurisdiction in relation to all the mattes relating to his service. As held in L. CHANDRAKUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA[1] the grievance of the Government employee must be agitated at the first instance before the Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and only thereafter the matter can be examined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of its power of judicial review. The material placed before this Court also shows that the 3rd respondent herein filed O.A.No.4316 of 2009 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal with a prayer to admit him to duty, as per the impugned proceedings dated 26.01.2009 and by order dated 30.03.2009 the Tribunal directed to implement the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that contempt proceedings are also pending before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for non-compliance of the interim order dated 30.03.2009. However, the leaned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently contended that there is no absolute bar as such and this Court in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can entertain the writ petition and pass appropriate orders to meet the ends of justice. The said contention is untenable in view of the decision in L. CHANDRAKUMAR’s case (1 supra). Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedy available under law before the appropriate forum. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.10.2009 gbs Note:- CC in 3 days. (B/O) gbs [1] AIR 1997 SC 1125