JUDGMENT The Court: In this particular case an interesting question has arisen whether a Sub-Assistant Engineer, employed under the Zilla Parishad which is a body corporate under the provisions of the Panchayat Act, is an employee of the State Government and holder of a civil post under Art. 310 of the Constitution and whether the State Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate in respect of the service matter of the employees of the Zilla Parishad. Admittedly the Zilla Parishad is a creature of the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 which is a local authority and notification constituting the State Administrative Tribunal does not cover the cases of the employees of the Panchayat of the Zilla Parishad. The provisions of the Zilla Parishad might have provided some clause for creation and abolition of the post in the Zilla Parishad concerned. But that does not make an employee of a Zilla Parishad, to be an employee of the State. 2. Reference was made by the Tribunal to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.N.A. Britto vs. Chief Executive Officer and others, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1636 whether Panchayat Secretaries under the Act are the State Government employees and that their services were placed under the local Board, and accordingly in that case it was held that the said employee was holding a civil post under the State Government within the meaning of s. 15(1)(b) of the said Act and he is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance in relation to his subject matter. The policy referred to had no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the case, in as much as the Sub-Assistant Engineer was not holder of a civil post and his service was under the Zilla Parishad and not under the State Government. 3. Under the Karnataka Village Local Boards Act, s. 15(1) provides that Secretary can be appointed to such an authority who must be a person in the service of the State or in a civil post under the State. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the employees of the Panchayat particularly Zilla Parishad cannot be regarded as employees of the State as those officers were not initially appointed by the State and their services had not been placed under the State. 5. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the employees of the Panchayat particularly Zilla Parishad cannot be regarded as employees of the State as those officers were not initially appointed by the State and their services had not been placed under the State. 5. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Tribunal does not have any power to interfere with the matter of service pertaining to the employees of the Zilla Parishad. 6. The order of the Tribunal entertaining the application and the order passed thereon are, accordingly, all set aside. 7. This order is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to move this High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution or any other forum as is available to the petitioner under the law. The order of the Tribunal set aside.