- (1.) The Appellants are in appeal against the order dated 30th September, 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India would not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition preferred by the Appellants and the remedy for the Appellants will be to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
(2.) At the hearing of this appeal, on behalf of the Appellants, learned Counsel submits that the issue of vires of a notification cannot be gone into by the CAT, as it is an existing condition of service and consequently, it was open to the Association of Employees to have moved this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.
(3.) On the other hand, on behalf of the Respondents, learned Counsel has drawn our attention to Rule 4 (5) of the Rules framed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1985'), which are known as the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1987') as also to the judgments of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., 1997 3 SCC 261 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. v. Subhash Sharma, 2002 4 SCC 145. In answer to that, on behalf of the Appellants, learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad, 2003 2 SCC 632.;