N. N. Mithal, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for recall of an order dated 13-9-85 finally disposing of the writ petition filed by the opposite parties. THIS application was moved on 20-11-85.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent as to the maintainability of the application in view of the provisions of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Drapped in comparative brevity the relevant facts are that by means of Writ Petition (No. 2271 of 78) the petitioners had challenged the order of the General Manager, Railways dated 3-4-78 cancelling the panel for promotion to class-3 posts. The writ petition was allowed on 13-5-85, but it is urged that in the cause list of that date the name of Sri Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant was not shown. The matter was heard ex-parte and the writ petition was disposed of on 13-9-85. Subsequently the present application was moved on 20-11-85. It may be recalled that in the meantime Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'the Act') was enforced from 1-11-1985. The objection of the respondent is that on the enforcement of the Act the jurisdiction hitherto exercised by the Court in matters pertaining to All India Services would cease and became vested exclusively in the Tribunal constituted under the Act. From that day onwards the High Court cannot exercise any jurisdiction over any matter regarding recruitment etc. to All India Service. So far as the pending matters are concerned Section 29 of the Act provides that these shall stand transferred to the Tribunal immediately on the establishment of the Tribunal if the cause of action on which it is based relates to that matter cognizable by the Tribunal. Only appeals pending before the High Court and the Supreme Court have been saved. What is, therefore, urged is that as soon as the Act comes into being the High Court loses all jurisdiction in respect of All India Service regarding service matters of all kinds and these powers simultaneously got vested in the Tribunal in view of Section 15 of the Act.
(3.) THERE appears to be substantial merit in what the objector contends. Language of Section 14 (1) is to the widest amplitude as would be apparent from the following expression used therein: "All jurisdictions, powers and authority exerciseable by......all courts" The provision, therefore, expressly takes away the jurisdiction, powers as well as authority of the Courts even those which were exercisable by it. The word 'exerciseable' widens the scope of the section. In our opinion, therefore, the Court is not left with the jurisdiction or power to deal with any matter even directly or incidentally.;