JUDGMENT - M.L. PENDSE, J.:---This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of judgment dated February 2, 1988 passed by the Member of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Bombay, Bench, New Bombay. By the impugned order, the Member declined to entertain the Review Petition filed by the petitioner for reconsideration of the judgment delivered on November 3, 1987 in Transfer Application Nos. 161 of 1986 and 163 of 1986. 2. Initially, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the Original Side of this Court and after the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in accordance with the provisions of section 25 of the Act, the petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal numbered the proceedings as Transfer Application and disposed of the same on merits. The order of the Tribunal is questioned in the present petition. 3. We are unable to entertain the petition as, in our judgement, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be challenged by filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227(1) of the Constitution of India reads as under : " Every High Court shall have Superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it excises jurisdiction." Mr. Masand submits that the powers of Superintendence over Tribunals vested in the High Court are not taken away by the enactment of the Administrative Tribunals Act. We are unable to accept the submission. Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act clearly prescribes that on and from the date from which any jurisdiction, powers and authority becomes exercisable under the Act by the Tribunal, no Court except the Supreme Court be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matter concerned such recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services. In view of this specific bar under section 28 of Administrative Tribunals Act, in our judgment, it is not permissible for this Court to examine the judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal by resort to powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of this specific bar under section 28 of Administrative Tribunals Act, in our judgment, it is not permissible for this Court to examine the judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal by resort to powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Central Administrative Tribunals are created by Parliament in accordance with Article 323-A of the Constitution and Article 323-A(2)(d) confers power to exclude the jurisdiction of all Courts, except the jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 136 with respect to the disputes or complaints referred to such Tribunal. Article 323-A(3) prescribes that Article 323-A shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of the Constitution of India or any other law for the time being in force. The power of superintendence of High Court is specifically excluded in regard to Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. The Supreme Court examined issues relating to judicial review and relating to Administrative Tribunals created under Article 323-A of the Constitution of India in the decision reported in A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 386 (S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and others)1. The Supreme Court noticed that as the workload in the High Court increased the question of devising ways and means of relieving the High Court of writ petitions and appeals in service matters was examined by the Government with assistance of Report of Shah Committee and Administrative Reforms Commission and it was decided to set up Tribunals to save High Court from avalanche of writ petitions and appeals. The Supreme Court held that unlike Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Article 226 and 227 do not confer fundamental right and exclusion of jurisdiction of High Court in service matters would not affect judicial review as effective alternative institutional mechanisms is provided by Parliament. The Supreme Court held that Administrative Tribunals for service matters are as efficacious as High Courts in exercising power of judicial review and are indeed substitute for High Court. In view of the decision of Supreme Court, the claim that powers of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India remain in Act in regard to Administrative Tribunals for service matters cannot be accepted. In view of the decision of Supreme Court, the claim that powers of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India remain in Act in regard to Administrative Tribunals for service matters cannot be accepted. It cannot be overlooked that petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the Original Side of this Court was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and it is futile to suggest that in face of the provisions of section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the High Court can sit over the judgment of the Tribunal. 5. Mr. Masand submitted that Writ Petition No. 5918 of 1687 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal was admitted by the Division Bench of this Court and the same is pending final hearing. The mere admission of one petition cannot be construed as decision of Division Bench that High Court can exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and set aside orders passed by the Administrative Tribunals. We have considered submission of Mr. Masand on the question of jurisdiction and we are satisfied that the High Court cannot entertain petition under Article 227 of the Constitutional of India against the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, petition is summarily rejected on the ground that petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not lie against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Order accordingly. -----