B K SHADAKSHARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in writ petition nos. 21018 and 21019 of 1986 the petitioners, who are surgeons in the department of health and family welfare of the state government have questioned the constitutional validity of the Karnataka medical department service (recruitment) (Amendment) rules, 1986, and in writ petition nos. 21492 and 21493 of 1986, the petitioners, who are second division clerks in the revenue department of the state government, have questioned the constitutional validity of the Karnataka revenue subordinate branch services (recruitment) rules, 1977, contending that the Rules are void on the ground of being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India,

(2.) these matters have been referred to the division bench under section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The important question which arises for consideration in these cases is: whether on the coming into force of the administrative tribunals Act, 1985 ('the act' for short) and the establishment of the stale administrative tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India to retain or entertain petitions presented under that Article before it, challenging the constitutional validity of any law regulating recruitment and conditions of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the stale and decide such petitions stood excluded and got vested in the state administrative tribunal?

(3.) the facts and circumstances of the cases which have given rise to the above question are these : the administrative tribunals Act, 1985 (act no.13 of 1985) was enacted by the parliament pursuant to the power given to it under Article 323-a of the constitution, which was incorporated in to the constitution by the constitution 42nd Amendment act. Under the said Act, Karnataka administrative tribunal was constituted with effect from 6-10-1986. Section 15 of the act specifies the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the slate administrative tribunal. According to the said provision jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to recruitment to any civil service of the state or to any civil post under the stale and All service matters concerning the civil servants of the state, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal, except to the extent excepted by the provisions of the act. Services which are excluded from the jurisdiction of the tribunal are the officers and servants of the High Court and the sub-ordinate courts including the members of the sub-ordinate judiciary and the officers and officials of the state legislature. Section 28 of the act excludes the jurisdiction of All the courts, i.e., including the high courts except that of the supreme court, in respect of matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal. It is having regard to the provisions of this Act, the question arises as to whether the jurisdiction to decide these writ petitions in which constitutional validity of service laws have been challenged, also falls within the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal and consequently the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the constitution stands ousted or whether such matters cannot and have not been excluded from the jurisdiction of this court and therefore this court continues to have the jurisdiction. This very question, except that it concerned the central administrative tribunal, was considered by this court in the case of s.m. pattanaik v secretary to government of India, reported in ilr1986 Kar. 3954. That decision was rendered on 5-11-1986. In the said case, both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned advocate- general appearing for the state submitted that the question should be answered in the negative. No specific stand in writing was taken by the central government. The question was considered in great detail and from various angles and was answered in the negative. The judgment was based upon the scope of Article 323-a of the constitution which gave the power to the parliament to establish administrative tribunals. The relevant portion of the judgment reads :