ORDER K.K. Varma, J. 1. This is petition purporting to be under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, addressed to this Court, for the quashing of the order dated 20-6-1991 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Collector (Scheduled Tribes Welfare Section), Morena, terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect. 2. The circumstances for filing the petition in this Court have been stated at page 8 of the petition in Ground (G) in the following terms : - "That, petitioners have no other efficacious remedy than approaching this Hon'ble Court. Presently, there is no Bench of S.A.T. in Gwalior and no building has been allotted for the Bench of State Administrative Tribunal at Gwalior. This petition cannot approach the Tribunal at Jabalpur." 3. In the application for an ad interim writ (I. A. No. 1/91) it was stated at paragraph 4 :- "that there is no Bench of the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal at Gwalior. The Government has not allotted any building to the M. P. Administrative Tribunal for opening the Bench at Gwalior. Accordingly the petitioners are entitled to file this petition as per law laid down in the case of S.P. Sampat Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India, (1985) 4 SCC 458 ." 4. The following ad interim reliefs have been claimed in the alternative : "It is therefore, humbly prayed that an ad interim writ may kindly be issued restraining the respondents for implementing the order Annexure-P (?). In the alternative it is prayed that an order for status quo may kindly be issued and the petition may kindly be transferred to Administrative Tribunal when the Tribunal visits Gwalior for the next sitting." 5. The petitioners' learned counsel conceded that the subject matter of the petition is a service matter in respect of which the State Administrative Tribunal, M. P., Jabalpur has the jurisdiction Under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is, therefore, clear that the subject matter of the petition does not lie within the jurisdiction of the High Court. 6. The petitioners' learned counsel has relied on condition No. (3) at paragraph 3 of the judgment of S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1985) 4 SCC 458 . It is, therefore, clear that the subject matter of the petition does not lie within the jurisdiction of the High Court. 6. The petitioners' learned counsel has relied on condition No. (3) at paragraph 3 of the judgment of S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1985) 4 SCC 458 . The portion relied upon runs as follows : - (3) "Where no Bench of the Tribunal is located at the place where there is a seat of the High Court any application or petition in regard to the matters covered by the Act will be filed in the Registry of the High Court and as soon as such application immediately be sent to the Bench of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over that area and if there is an application for interim relief made in such petition or application, a member of the Bench will make himself available at the seat of the High Court for hearing the application and for interim relief within one week from the receipt of the intimation and until then, status quo as on the date of the filing of the application for interim relief shall be maintained." 7. However, paragraph 3 of the Supreme Court judgment being as follows :- "3. So far as the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution pending in the High Courts as also suits or appeals pending in the subordinate Courts are concerned, there will be no order of stay subject to the following conditions." It is, therefore, clear that the aforementioned observations make it clear that the Supreme Court passed no order of stay so far the writ petition under Article 226 then pending in the High Court. Thus, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any petition in the subject matter of which the State Administrative Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction Under Section 15 of the M. P. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Even condition No. (3) occurring in paragraph 3 of the Supreme Court judgment nowhere says that the High Court gets any jurisdiction to pass any order on the application for ad interim relief in respect of the matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Administrative Tribunal. 8. In U.P.S. Chauhan v. Union of India, 1990 MPJR SN 26, a Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior held as follows : - "... 8. In U.P.S. Chauhan v. Union of India, 1990 MPJR SN 26, a Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior held as follows : - "... We hold that this Court shall continue to pass interim orders at Gwalior Bench in service matters exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution till such time as the Bench of the Tribunal does not start functioning at Gwalior or the Tribunal does not hold circuit sittings here." 9. We take judicial notice of the fact that the State Administrative Tribunal, M. P., Jabalpur, held its circuit sitting at Gwalior on 19th, 20th and 2ist June, 1991. 10. After reopening of the summer vacation that is, since 24-6-1991, we been ordering in petitions, already entertained at this Bench in the light of the directions in U.P.S. Chauhan's case that now the records be sent to the S.A.T., M. P., Jabalpur for taking up those cases at their sittings at Gwalior. 11. We have been given to understand that the S.A.T., M. P., Jabalpur has so far no Office establishment at Gwalior. This situation poses a problem before the prospective petitioners here. Keeping this situation in view, the following orders and directions are being passed which shall govern in M.P. No. 1183/1991 (Madho Rao Jadhav v. State of M. P. and Ors.). 12. The two petitions and/or the application for ad interim relief filed therein cannot be entertained by this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 13. There are no directions in condition No. (3) of paragraph 3 of the case of S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, (1985) 4. SCC 458, that the High Court shall pass any formal orders that the status quo shall be maintained until the availability of the Members of the Administrative Tribunal for hearing application for interim relief at the seat of the High Court. As such, the High Court cannot pass any orders in respect of the maintenance of the status quo. 14. The two petitions and the connected papers will be taken to be subject matter of petitions meant for the S.A.T., M. P., Jabalpur. So far as this Court is concerned the two miscellaneous petition stand disposed of. 15. As such, the High Court cannot pass any orders in respect of the maintenance of the status quo. 14. The two petitions and the connected papers will be taken to be subject matter of petitions meant for the S.A.T., M. P., Jabalpur. So far as this Court is concerned the two miscellaneous petition stand disposed of. 15. The Additional Registrar of the Gwalior Bench of the High Court, M. P. will act in accordance with the directions given in condition No. (3) of paragraph 3 in S. P. Sampath Kumar's case, (1985) 4 SCC 458 . In other words, the Additional Registrar shall immediately send an intimation to the S.A.T., M. P., Jabalpur about the filing of the present petitions and the applications for ad interim relief. He shall deliver a copy of the intimation to the petitioners' counsel and another copy to the Dy. Advocate General, Gwalior for information. 16. A copy of this order be placed in the record of M. P. No. 1183/1991 (Madho Rao Jadhav v. State of M. P. and Ors.).