JUDGMENT

K.C. Agarwal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises the same questions for decision, which arise in the connected writ petition nos. 5648 of 1987 Samar Veer Johri v. State of U. P., 4382 of 1987 Shashi Bala v. State, 4373 of 1987 Ashok Kumar v. State, and 4385 of 1987 Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

2. The main arguments in this bunch had been advanced by Sri Amit Bose, Advocate. He was supported by Sri G.S.L. Verma, Advocate.

3. The points urged were:

That after the enactment and implementation of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (Act No. 13 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1985), by the Parliament, the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976, (Act No. XVII of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as Act No. XVII of 1976) by the State Legislature has become redundant. The Tribunals created under Act No. XVII of 1976, therefore, have no power to adjudicate in respect of the matters relating to employment of the public servants of the State of U.P.

4. In 1976, the State Legislature passed the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 to provide for the establishment of the Public Services Tribunals pertaining to the employment matters of the Government servants and also of the employees of the local authorities and Government Corporation and Companies, so that the employees could get quick and inexpensive justice.

5. The validity of the aforesaid Act was challenged before this Court in a number of cases. The Act was found valid.

6. Articles 323A and 323B were inserted by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 and appended a new chapter in Indian Constitutional and Administrative law by excluding judicial review of the administrative decisions. The intention behind the insertion of these two Articles was to provide for constitution of the Tribunals for exclusively deciding the cases of the Central Government employees, its Corporations etc. In pursuance of Article 323A, the Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (Act No. 13 of 1985). The object of this Act was to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with regard 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 of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

7. After the enforcement of this Act, the Tribunals were constituted by the Central Government, in various States. Section 14 of the aforesaid Act lays down the powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunals. It further excluded all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable before the enactment of Act No. XIII of 1985 by all Courts (except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution) in relation to matters specified in clauses (a) to (c) of Section 14.

8. The first submission made by the petitioner's counsel was that in view of subArticle (3) of Article 323 A, the provisions of U.P. Act No. XVII of 1976 were deemed to have been repealed and, as such, the Tribunals created under the U.P. Act No. XVII of 1976 cease to have jurisdiction to try the service disputes in respect of the employees of the State of U.P. SubArticle (3) reads as under :

The provisions of this article shall have effect not withstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.

9. Amongst others, the main submission of the petitioner's counsel was that U.P. Act No. XVII of 1976 is repugnant to the provisions of Central Act No. 13 of 1985 and, as such, the U.P. Act became inoperative. We had been taken through the various provisions of the two Acts by the learned counsel for the purpose of showing the inconsistency between them. Counsel urged that in view of Articles 245, 246 and 254 (2), the Central Act