S. B. Sinha, J.

1. These two writ petitions filed by the two practicing Advocates of this court, inter alia, involve the question as to whether the Bihar Administrative Tribunal Act, 1981 , is ultra vires the Constitution of India or not.

2. The said Act was enacted for creating an alternative forum for adjudication of disputes relating to service matters concerning officers and other employees of the Bihar Government. The said Act applies to the following matters : -

(a) Appointment, (b) Promotion to any post, (c) Seniority of persons appointed/promoted and, (d) All other conditions of service excluding transfer and posting.

3. However, in terms of Sec.6 (2) of the Bihar Administrative Tribunal act, 1981 (hereinafter called for the sake of brevity as the Act), the matters relating to the orders of dismissal and removal or reduction in rank of the employees which come within the purview of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution have also been taken away from the purview of the provisions of the Act.

4. The contention of the petitioners is that the said Act having been enacted in terms of Article 323-A of the Constitution of India does not conform to the requirements thereof and, as such, the same is ultra vires. The petitioners have further contended that, in any event, by reason of the provisions aforementioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts having been ousted the provisions thereof must be struck down inter alia on the ground that the Tribunal constituted under the said Act does not have the powers to enforce its order and/or pass ex pane order of interim injunction so as to give urgent and immediate relief to the applicants. In effect and substance, the contention is that the Tribunal is merely a statutory functionary and is not a court and in any event being not a real substitute for the Civil Court the provisions thereof are liable to be struck down. It has also been contended that the Constitution of the Tribunal in terms of the provisions of Sec.3 of the Act is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of india as the Tribunal must consist of at least one-third members having experience in judicial service or in law and the same having not been compelled with the constitution of the Tribunal must be held to be wholly illegal. It has also been contended that so far as other members are concerned, the matter relating to their appointment is wholly unguided and uncanalised as no guideline has been provided in the act relating to their qualification or experience, etc. , to hold the said posts.

5. It is a common ground that the Tribunal at present consists of the Hon ble Mr. Justice S. K. Choudhury, a retired Judge of this Court, Shri S. K. Sinha, a retired I. A. S. Officer, Shri G. Narain, a retired I. P. S. Officer, Shri N. Kujur, a retired I. A. S. Officer, and Shri P. N. Trivedi, a retired Chief Engineer as members. According to the petitioners, except the Chairman, the other members have no experience as a judicial officer or in law and in the view of the matter the mandate thereof to the effect that one third of the members should have experience in judicial service or in law has been violated.

6. Mr. K. P. Verma, petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.2790 of 1986, has further submitted that by enacting the said Act and creating the Tribunal, the directive principle enshrined in the Constitution to the effect that justice should be delivered to the litigants at their doorstep has been violated, as, by creation of the Tribunal at Patna with no other Bench at any other place in the whole of the State of Bihar, all the employees who intend to file a representation and are posted at a far away distance from Patna would all have to come to Patna where-for they would have to incur heavy expenses, whereas, if the jurisdiction of the civil Court was not ousted, the aggrieved employees could have moved the Civil court which is situated in every Sub-divisional or district headquarters.