JUDGMENT Honble Mr. Attar Singh, Vice Chairman : 1. This application has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief: (a) Declare the act of the respondents of reserving seven degree post graduation and 3 diploma post graduation course seats for the session 1998-2000, 2001 for HPHS -1 Officers having served in hard and difficult areas as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India and quash clauses 3.2 Note A and clause 3.2 (ii) & 3.10 of the prospectus by declaring the same as ultra virus and also quash Government letter No. health (B) 12 2/ 96 dated 23.3.1996 by declaring the same as ultra vires. (b) Direct the respondents fill in seats meant for HPHS Officers having served in Hard and difficult areas from amongst HPHS-I Officers competing in general/open category; (c) Declare the act of the respondents of reserving loss than 66.6 percent degree seats for in service candidates as bad and in violation of the conditions of the brochure and quash the same and direct the respondents to offer 66.6 percent seats in degree and diploma courses to in service candidates. (d) Direct respondents to offer subjects to different categories of candidates as per roster and not to repeat subjects allotted to one category in 1998-2000-2001 course again in 1999-2001-2002 course. (e) Direct the respondents to produce before the Honble Court the relevant record pertaining to case and to pay to the applicant the cost of the application. (f) Any other relief which the Honble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted, in the interest of justice. 2. A miscellaneous application No. 2707/99 in CA 2432/99 was filed by two applicants seeking to be impleaded as respondents No. 4 & 5. The same was allowed and the applicants in the miscellaneous applicants were added as respondents No. 4 & 5. Another miscellaneous application No. 2722/99 in OA 2432/99 was also filed seeking that she be impleaded as respondent in O.A. The same was also allowed and she was added respondent No. 6. Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 was filed. However, no separate reply on behalf of respondents No. 4,5 & 6 was filed and their counsel adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 was filed. However, no separate reply on behalf of respondents No. 4,5 & 6 was filed and their counsel adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. The learned counsel Smt. Trisha Sharma, on behalf of respondents No. 4&5 and Shri Dilip Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 6 argued that the H.P. Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction and that it is not a service matter and is a purely educational matter, which was not required to be adjudicated upon by the H.P. Administrative Tribunal. The selection of post graduate degree and diploma courses, cannot fall within the ambit of service matter as per section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunal Act. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 & 5 Mrs. Trisha Sharma, argued that service matter has been defined in section 3(q) which is as follows : "Service matters" - in relation to a person, means 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 - (i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reservation, premature retirement and super-annuation; (iii) leave of any kind; (iv) disciplinary matters; or (v) any other matter whatsoever; The present case is not covered in the definition of service matters. It is neither a case of remuneration, Pension nor confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, superannuation, leave of kind, disciplinary matters. It is a dispute regarding reservation of seats in Indira Gandhi Medical College, in post graduate courses, in various disciplines, as such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and matter lies within the jurisdiction of Honble High Court of H.P. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced before us the copies of two judgments in OA No. 2293/97 and OA 2383/97 decided by this Tribunal. These two judgments are regarding distribution of seats in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, to the post graduate degree and diploma courses. In CA No. 2383/97, I was also one of the members of the Bench. These two judgments are regarding distribution of seats in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, to the post graduate degree and diploma courses. In CA No. 2383/97, I was also one of the members of the Bench. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since such matter have already been decided by this Tribunal, impliedly, it means that this Tribunal has the jurisdiction and matter of jurisdiction also stands settled. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents held different views. Mrs. Trisha Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 submitted that in the two judgments, which the Tribunal has decided, the question of jurisdiction was not raised and those were decided on the basis of merit. She further submitted that it does not mean that the Tribunal has decided the issue of jurisdiction. Now, the question of jurisdiction in the present case has been raised and it has to be decided by the Tribunal. She brought to our notice the observations of the Honble Judges of the Apex Court in Mittal Engineering Works (P) Ltd.; v. C.C.E. CCS Vol. 1, 1997 page 207. "A decision cannot be relied upon in support of a proposition that it did not decide." 5. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 argued that the earlier two cases referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner decided on merit, cannot be cited as binding precedent in a case where the question of jurisdiction has been raised. Secondly, he argued that the case which was decided on merit, is binding only between the parties. He further submitted that the principle of resjudicata on the assumption that any earlier case where the point of jurisdiction was not decided and shall be deemed to have been by invoking principle of constructive resjudicata, is only binding between the parties in the earlier two cases. This decision cannot be a binding in another case where the point of jurisdiction was directly raised. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and counsels for the private respondents, carefully on the question of jurisdiction and we are of the view that the present case is not service matter. The expression "service matters" occurs in section 14 & 15 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, in which the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal are defined. The expression "service matters" occurs in section 14 & 15 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, in which the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Tribunal are defined. Section 14 refers to Central Administrative Tribunal, while section 15, deals with the jurisdiction, power and authority of the State Administrative Tribunals, which is reproduced below : "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 recruitments, to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State; (b) All the 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 sub-section(i) of section 14, appointed to any civil service of the State of 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 Govt. or of any corporation (or society) * owned or controlled by the 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 as is controlled or owned by the State Govt. at the disposal of the State Government for such appointment; (2) The State Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authority/ and corporations (or society) controlled or owned by the State Government; Provided that if the State Government considers it expedient so to do for the purpose of facilitating transition to the scheme as envisaged by this Act, different dates may be so specified under this subsection in respect of different classes of or different categories under any class of, locator other authorities or corporations (or society). (3) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Administrative Tribunal for a State shall also exercise, on and from the date with effect from which the provisions of this sub-section apply to any local or other authority or corporation (or Society), all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that date by all courts (except the Supreme Court, in relation to :- (a) recruitment and matters concerning recruitment, to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation (or society); and (b) all service matters concerning a person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of this section or a member, person or civilian referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 14 appointed to any service or post in connection with the affairs of such local or other authority or corporation (or society) and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with such affairs. 7. From the perusal of section 15 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, reproduced above, it is evident that service matters are those which relate to recruitment, disputes and complaints regarding conditions of service. The present case is not a case of recruitment nor it relates to conditions of service. Hence, the present case is not a service matter and so is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 8. We are also of the view that the two cases OA No. 2293/97 and OA 2333/97, decided by this Tribunal, are not binding on us, as the question of jurisdiction was neither raised in those cases nor decided. Hence, these two cases are not binding on this Tribunal. 9. In view of the above discussion, we find that the present case does not relate to service matters, hence, we have no jurisdiction to decide this case. Accordingly, the application is rejected. The stay granted on 17.9.1999, is hereby vacated. The case is finally disposed of, in terms of the above with no orders as to costs.