Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a direction for review of the answer script of the petitioner in respect of the written examination held on 12.1.97 in connection with recruitment to the posts of Work Assistant under the Public Works Directorate of the Government of West Bengal. The threshold question is whether such writ petition is maintainable in view of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
(2.) Evidently, the post is a civil post under the State of West Bengal. The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT, for short) has been already functioning in this State under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has not yet entered the service under the State Government the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act does not attracted in this matter. In this connection he also attracts my attention to the definition of 'service matters' as appearing in the section 3(q) of the Act and submits that the Administrative Tribunals Act is applicable only after a person has acquired the status of an employee of the Government. 'Service matters' in section 3(q) has been defined thus : "3(q). 'Service matters', in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government, as respects- (i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits ; (ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation ; (iii) leave of any kind ; (iv) disciplinary matters or (v) any other matter whatsoever." It is true that in view of the definition of 'service matters' as contained in section 3(q) the question of initial recruitment in service under the Government does not come within the sweep of the said definition. But then the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Administrative Tribunals as delineated in section 15 also takes within its fold matters relating to recruitment also. Section 15(1) runs thus: "15(1). Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise, on and from an appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all Courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to- (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the state or to any civil post under the state ; (b) All service matters concerning a persons not being a person referred to in clause (c) of this sub-section or a member, person or civilian referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 14 appointed to any civil service of the state or any civil post under the state and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the state or of any local or other authority under the control of the State Government or of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the State Government (c) all service matters pertaining to service it connection with the affairs of the state concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in clause (b). being a person whose services have been placed by any such local or other authority or corporation or society or other body as is controlled or owned by the State Government, at the disposal of the State Government for such appointment." The preamble of the Act also describes it as 'An Act to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and' etc. It is therefore evident that apart from all service matters concerning an employee the question relating to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any civil post also expressly fall within the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal in view of section 15(1)(a). In paragraph 5 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner that having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange the petitioner was called for a written examination on 12.1.97 along with others for recruitment of Work Assistants under Public Works Directorate, Government of West Bengal and Admit Card was issued by the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Plainly the petitioner's grievance is relating to recruitment to the post for which he appeared in the written examination. That being so the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal. The original writ jurisdiction therefore cannot be invoked iD the matter at the first instance in view of the section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
(3.) It has submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the State Administrative Tribunal is not entertaining any petition relating to recruitment to any civil post under the State and that is why the petitioner has to file the writ petition. I can not understand bow the State Administrative Tribunal can refuse to entertain any petition relating to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any civil post in view of the express provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act which I have quoted above. Be that as it may, this Court has to act within the parameters of law and not on the basis what the State Administrative Tribunal is doing. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that similar writ applications are also being entertained by the other learned Single Judges of this Court. He however could not produce any single decision of this Court, reported or unreported, to show that similar writ petitions are being directly entertained by this Court. Therefore in view of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act I have to hold that the present writ petition can not be entertained by this Court and the petitioner has to approach the State Administrative Tribunal at the first instance. I have also no occasion or necessity to refer the matter to any larger bench because no particular judicial decision contrary to the view take in this case has been brought to my notice or placed before me.;