- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Petitioner D. D. Dimri has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs : "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 26- 7-2004 passed by the U. P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 244 of 1997 (Annexure No. 1) as well as the Government Order dated 28. 04. 2006 passed by the Secretary Nagar Vikas Anubhag Govt. of U. P. Lucknow (Annexure No. 2) passed pursu ant to the order of the Tribunal dated 26-07-2004. II. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and cir cumstances of the case. III. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. "
(2.) THUS, the petitioner, in sub stance, is seeking quashing of the im pugned judgment dated 26-07-2004 passed by Lucknow Bench of U. P State Public Services Tribunal in Claim Peti tion No. 244 of 1997. Sri N. C. Gupta, the learned Standing Counsel and Sri A. Rab, the learned counsel for respondent no. 4, have raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that as the im pugned judgment dated 26-07-2004 was passed by Lucknow Bench of Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal, the High Court of Uttarakhand has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the said judgment. The Apex Court, in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261, observed in para 99 : "99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2 (d) of Ar ticle 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 uncon stitutional. 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 uncon stitutional. 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 jurisdic tion cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemen tal role in discharging the powers con ferred 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 be fore a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nev ertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been consti tuted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they ques tion the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which cre ates the particular Tribunal is chal lenged) 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.
(3.) FROM the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others (Supra), it becomes apparent that all the decisions of the Tribunal would be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction, the Tribunal concerned falls. As the impugned judgment dated 26-07-2004 has been passed by a Tri bunal, which is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Uttarakhand, the present writ petition is, apparently, not maintainable. The petitioner's apprehension that the im pugned judgment dated 26-07- 2004, when implemented, would adversely af fect the interest of the petitioner, who is posted in the State of Uttarakhand, would not confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Uttarakhand to entertain a writ petition challenging the judgment passed by the Tribunal, which is not situ ated within the State of Uttarakhand.;