N.D. OJHA, R.R. RASTOGI, JJ.

1. The Petitioner is a public servant as defined in Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Against the order of his reversion he made a claim before the State Public Services Tribunal. He also made an application for staying the operation of the order of reversion. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 31st March, 1978, on the ground that in view of Section 5-B of the aforesaid Act it was not open to it to stay the operation of the order of reversion. Aggrieved by this order the Petitioner has instituted the present writ petition.

2. The only point which has been urged by counsel for the Petitioner is that Section 5-B, on account of which the Tribunal felt helpless to pass the order of stay, was ultra vires the ligislative competence of the State legislature.

3. Having heard counsel for the Petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the Respondents we, however, find ourselves unable to agree with this submission. Section 5-B was inserted in the Act by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) (Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1977). This Act received the assent of the President on January 10, 1977, and was published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated January 15, 1977. Reliance by counsel for the Petitioner was placed on Article 323A of the Constitution inserted by Section 46 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. By notification No. G.S.R. 2(E) dated 3rd January, 1977, published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), Part III, on the same date, the 3rd day of January, 1977, was appointed as the date on which Section 46 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, was to come into force. This notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. It was urged by counsel for the Petitioner that in view of Article 323A inserted by Section 46 as aforesaid, which came into force on 3rd January, 1977, the State legislature ceased to be competent after the said date to enact any law in regard to administrative tribunals. According to counsel for the Petitioner in inserting Article 323A in the Constitution it was clearly intended to cover the whole field in regard to administrative tribunals and consequently the State legislature in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Entry 41 (State Public Services, State Public Service Commission) of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution ceased to be competent to enact any law in regard to Administrative Tribunals. Article 323A reads:

323A. Administrative Tribunals.- (1) Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts 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 of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government,

(2) A law made under Clause (1) may- (a) provide for the establishment of an administrative tribunal for the Union and a separate administrative tribunal for each State or for two or more States;

(b) specify the jurisdiction, powers (including the power to punish for contempt) and authority which may be exercised by each of the said tribunals;

(c) provide for the procedure (including provisions as to limitation and rules of evidence) to be followed by the said tribunals;

(d) exclude the jurisdiction of all courts, except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136, with respect to the disputes or complaints referred to in Clause (1);

(e) provide for the transfer to each such administrative tribunal of any cases pending before any court or other authority immediately before the establishment of such tribunal as would have been within the j