ORDER
Eswara Prasad, J.
1. The matter has come up for orders on the objection raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of the writ petition, filed against the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, by name. Sri Naga Seshaiah, learned Government Pleader was requested to assist the Court. He accordingly appeared and contended that the writ petition is not maintainable on two grounds, namely, (1) the writ petition filed against the Governor of a State by name is not maintainable under Article 361 of the Constitution of India; and (2) the writ petition also is not maintainable in this Court as it pertains to the service matter of the petitioner, and is barred by the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. The petitioner served as a Veterinary Asst. Surgeon in the A.P. Animal husbandry Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, The sole respondent in the writ petition is, Sri Krishna Kanth, Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner prays for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 1 Crore. As an interim relief the petitioner sought a direction for payment of Rs. One Lakh. The petitioner alleged that he was victimised by the order in G.O.Ms. No. 728, Food and Agriculture, dt. 24-10-1991 issued “by the Order and in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh”. The petitioner further submits that he was entitled to proper fixation of pay and payment of arrears from 1-4-1970.
3. As observed earlier, the petitioner seeks a relief connected with his service in the Government of Andhra Pradesh as Veterinary Asst. Surgeon. He questions the Government Order issued in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. Any claim against the Governor of Andhra Pradesh, whether in the capacity of a Governor or in his individual name, is barred under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:
“Article 361: (1) The President, or the Governor of a State shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties:
Provided that the conduct of the President may be brought under review by any court, tribunal or body appointed or designated by either House of Parliament for the investigation of a charge under Article 261; Provided further that nothing in this clause shall be construed as restricting the right of any person to bring appropriate proceedings against the Government of India or the Government of a State.
(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President, or the Governor of State, in any court during his term of office.
(3) No process for the arrest or imprisonment of the President, or the Governor of a State shall issue from any court during his term of office.
(4) No civil proceedings in which relief is claimed against the President, or the Governor of a State, shall be instituted during his term of office in any court in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by him in his personal capacity, whether before or after he entered upon his office as President or as Governor of such State, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the President or the Governor, as the case may be, or left at his office stating the nature of proceedings, the cause of action thereof, the name, description and place of residence of the party by whom such proceedings are to be instituted and the relief which he claims.”
4. The Governor of a State is not answerable in any Court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of those powers and duties. The impugned G.O. was issued in the name of the Governor which is in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of the office of the Governor. Article 361(1) bars Courts from entertaining suits or writ petitions seeking relief against the Governor of a State.
5. The petitioner has impleaded the Governor by his name in his personal capacity. In clause (4) of Article 361, no civil proceeding in which relief is claimed against the Governor in his personal capacity shall be instituted during his term of office in any court in respect of any act done or purporting to be done by him in his personal capacity. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition filed against the Governor of the State, either in his official capacity or personal capacity is barred by the provisions of Article 361 of the Constitution and is not maintainable.
6. The relief claimed in the writ petition relates to the service matter of the petitioner, as a Veterinary Asst. Surgeon in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of A.P. under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Administrative Tribunal shall exercise jurisdiction relating to all service matters concerning a person. In Clause (q) of Section 3 of the Act, ‘service matters’ in relation to a person, mean 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 remuneration (including allowances), pension and other terminal benefits, tenure including confirmation, etc., leave, disciplinary matters or any other matters whatsoever, The learned Government Pleader was correct in submitting that the matters raised in this writ petition cannot be considered by this Court, as they pertain to the service matters concerning the petitioner.
7. The objection raised by the Registry is accordingly upheld and the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.