ORDER
Rama Jois, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of termination of his services as Superintendent for Boys Hostel in the Department of Social Welfare of the State Government.
2. This matter has been referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the learned Single Judge. On 24th April, 1990 the Government Advocate was directed to take notice and the matter has now come up for preliminary hearing.
3. The first question for consideration is about the maintainability of the Writ Petition. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has been enacted by the Parliament pursuant to Article 323-A of the Constitution. Under the said Act, an Administrative Tribunal has been constituted for this State called the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, in view of Clause (d) of Article 323-A of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain Writ Petitions concerning disputes and complaints in service matters of the civil servants of this State is taken away and is vested in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was appointed to a civil post and the dispute in the Writ Petition is about the legality of termination of his service. Therefore, it is clear that the matter lies squarely within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal and a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained as the jurisdiction of this Court is taken away.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Administrative Tribunal has taken the view in a case in respect of persons appointed on daily wages that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction and therefore this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition.
5. If persons appointed to a civil post on dally wages cannot be regarded as civil servant, the submission of the learned Counsel that the Writ Petition is maintainable before this Court would be well-founded. But, we are unable to agree that a person appointed against a civil post on daily wages is not a civil servant and a dispute relating to termination of his service is not a service matter of a civil servant over which the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction.
6. The criteria to find out as to whether a person is a civil servant or holds a civil post were laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. A.N. SINGH, . In that case the question for consideration was as to whether Tahvildars employed by a treasurer in the State of Uttar Pradesh who was receiving an allowance to cover their pay and leave salary were not civil servants? The Supreme Court held that they were civil servants. Relevant portion of the Judgment reads:
“(7) It is therefore clear from the record that Tahvildars were appointed to perform the duties of cashiers in Government Treasuries. Their appointment was made by the Government Treasurer with the approval of the District Collector, but it was made for performance of public duties, and remuneration was paid to them by the State directly. Tahvildars were liable to be transferred under orders of the Collector and to be suspended or removed from service under his orders. An instance already referred to shows that a Tahvildar who had been suspended by the Treasurer was ordered to be reinstated by the Collector. It is from these circumstances that the relationship between the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Tahvildars has to be ascertained.
(8) Whether in a given case the relationship of master and servant exists is a question of fact, which must be determined on a consideration of all material and relevant circumstances having a bearing on that question. In general selection by the employer, coupled with payment by him of remuneration of wages, the right to control the method of work, and a power to suspend or remove from employment are indicative of the relation of master and servant. But co-existence of all these indicia is not predicated in every case to make the relation one of master and servant. In special classes of employment a contract of service may exist, even in the absence of one or more of these indicia. But ordinarily the right of an employer to control the method of doing the work, and the power of superintendence and control may be treated as strongly indicative of the relation of master and servant, for that relation imports the power not only to direct the doing of some work but also the power to direct the manner in which the work is to be done. If the employer has the power, prima facie, the relation is that of master and servant.”
The above principle was reiterated in the case of ASSAM v. KANAKACHANDRA, AIR 1969 SC 884 by the Supreme Court. In this case applying the aforesaid principle a mauzdar appointed as a part time employee having no definite rate of pay under the State of Assam was also held to be a civil servant.
7. Article 323-A of the Constitution pursuant to which the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted reads:-
“323-A. 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 -2.
(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 jurisdiction of such Tribunal if the causes of action on which such suits or proceedings are based had arisen after such establishment;
(f) repeal or amend any order made by the President under Clause (3) of Article 371D;
(g) contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to fees) as Parliament may deem necessary for the effective functioning of, and for the speedy disposal of cases by and the enforcement of the orders of, such Tribunals.
(3) The provisions of this article shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.”
8. The Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, providing for the Constitution of Administrative Tribunals for the Union and for the States. The relevant provision of the Act which confers jurisdiction on the State Tribunals and excludes the jurisdiction of all Courts except that of the Supreme Court and Industrial Courts read:-
“15. JURISDICTION, POWERS AND AUTHORITY OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS: (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall exercise, on and from the 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 person [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 Subsection (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 State Government;
(c) all service matters pertaining to service in 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 a is controlled or owned by the State Government, at the disposal of the State Government for such appointment.”
XXX XXX XXX
28. EXCLUSION OF JURISDICTION OF COURTS EXCEPT THE SUPREME COURT:- On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any Service or post or service matter concerning members of any Service or persons appointed to any Service or post, (no Court except –
(a) the Supreme Court; or
(b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other corresponding law for the time being in force;
shall have), or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters.”
In view of these provisions, the jurisdiction to deal with every service matter of a person appointed to a civil service or a civil post of this State irrespective of the nature of employment is vested in the Tribunal and the jurisdiction in respect of service matters of such persons of all other Courts including that of the High Court, but excluding that of the Supreme Court and of an Industrial Court or Tribunal is barred.
9. This Court in the case of PATNAIK S.M. v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, has, on consideration of Article 323-A of the Constitution and the provisions of the Act, has held that only the question relating to the constitutional validity of service laws are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and therefore continued with the High Courts under Article 226 and in respect of all disputes and complaints in service matters jurisdiction under Article 226 is taken away.
10. Now coming to the facts of this case, it may be seen from the appointment order, the petitioner was appointed on 21-12-1987 by the order of the District Social Welfare Officer, Tumkur as a Superintendent for Government Boys Hostel, Byalya, Madhugiri Taluk, on a daily wage” of Rs. 13/- on purely temporary basis, for a period of four months or till the vacancy is filled up by the Competent Authority. After more than two years, the petitioner’s services were terminated on 9-4-1990. The appointment order gives no room for doubt that the petitioner was appointed to a civil post by an officer of the State Government, who was competent to make the appointment and his wages were required to be paid by the State and this appointment order brought about the relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the State and he was employed to do the work attached to a civil post. Every one of the criteria required to hold that the person concerned holds a civil post are satisfied in the (present case. Therefore, it is clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition as the dispute is concerning a service matter of a person appointed to civil service/post under the State.
11. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed, as not maintainable.