GODA RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) A Laboratory Assistant working in the Railway Degree College, lalaguda, Secunderabad, an institution under the control of the South Central Railways, is before this Court seeking, in substance, re- designation as a Demonstrator, with effect from 29-7-1980, with the benefits of salary and emoluments attached to the post of demonstrator as well as for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Botany in the UGC pay scale of Rs. 2,200-4000. ( 2 ) THE South Central Railway opened a degree college at Lalaguda, Secunderabad in 1976-77. On 9-9-1979, it advertised for recruitment to various posts including the post of a Laboratory Assistant. The petitioner applied for the post of Laboratory Assistant, was selected and appointed. She joined duties in the post on 29-7-1980. While in service, she acquired qualifications of b. Ed. , in 1st class and M. Sc. , (Botany) in 1st class 1986-1988 respectively. In november, 1993, the petitioner also qualified for the National Eligibility Test conducted by the State Government. ( 3 ) AS recruitment of Tutors Demonstrators in degree colleges was fading out, it would appear that the Director of Collegiate education recommended to the State government, absorption of such of those tutors Demonstrator, who acquired post graduation qualification in the 1st or 2nd class after 1. 1. 1986, for their conversion as Lecturers. The State Government by its orders in G. O. Rt. No. 248 dated 16-2-1993 accepted the recommendation and declared the eligibility for conversion of Tutors demonstrators working in degree colleges as Lecturers subject to the qualifications and other norms specified in the order. These orders were applicable to the Tutors demonstrators of Government Degree colleges. Earlier in 1986, pursuant to recommendations of the Director of Higher education, the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 237, dated 27-5-1986 permitted re- designation of the posts of Laboratory assistants, in taken over Government degree colleges, as Demonstrators to enable qualified and eligible Laboratory Assistants re-designated as Demonstrators, to derive the benefit of promotion as Lecturers. These orders were also on recognition of the declining number of Laboratory Assistants and that many of them had acquired higher qualifications. ( 4 ) IN G. O. Ms. No. 108 dated 4-5-1993 certain Laboratory Assistants were re- designated as Demonstrators. These Laboratory assistants were working in colleges taken over by the Government. Thereafter, in G. O. Ms. These orders were also on recognition of the declining number of Laboratory Assistants and that many of them had acquired higher qualifications. ( 4 ) IN G. O. Ms. No. 108 dated 4-5-1993 certain Laboratory Assistants were re- designated as Demonstrators. These Laboratory assistants were working in colleges taken over by the Government. Thereafter, in G. O. Ms. No. 450 dated 15-12-1995 orders were issued by the State Government on the basis of representations by various associations including Laboratory Assistants Association, directing that 44 Laboratory Assistants working in private aided colleges of osmania/kakatiya University areas who were qualified for the post of Demonstrators be re-designated as Demonstrators on par with the staff working in taken over degree colleges, in the light of the orders issued by the Government in G. O. Ms. Nos. 108 dated 4-5-1993, 237 dated 27-5-1986 and 383 dated 27-5-1986 etc. ( 5 ) AS the Laboratory Assistants of all degree colleges in the State whether engendered by the State, aided by the State or those working under private managements derived the benefit of re-designation and of consideration for further promotion as lecturers and as the petitioner working in the Railway Degree College at Lalaguda, secunderabad continued to languish as a laboratory Assistant, she submitted a representation on 3-4-1996 to the General manager, South Central Railways setting out all the facts earlier recorded and seeking re-designation as Demonstrator and promotion as Lecturer. It would appear that the Federation of Railway Employees also recommended/urged the Railway administration at Delhi to accord the benefit of re-designation as Demonstrators to laboratory Assistants and further promotions to them as Lecturers in line with the with administrative reforms brought about in the educational institutions under the control of the State Government. The petitioner also followed up her representation dated 3-4-1996 with further representations dated 3-8-1996 and 20-2-1997. The Railway degree College also appears to have recommended the petitioner s case for re- designation. By a letter dated 9-12-1997, the Secretary, Railway Board addressed the general Secretary of the Railway Men s federation stating that it is not feasible to accept its request for re-designation of laboratory Assistants working in the railway Degree Colleges as Demonstrators tutors. ( 6 ) IN the above circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the relief already adverted to. ( 6 ) IN the above circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the relief already adverted to. ( 7 ) THE petitioner seeks relief on the basis of a claim for parity of treatment with Laboratory Assistants working under the administrative control of the State government whether in Government Degree colleges, taken over colleges or under private management. ( 8 ) THE petitioner is however, working in a Railway Degree College which is not under the administrative control of the state Government. Being affiliated to the osmania University, the Railway Degree college, Lalaguda is undoubtedly under the academic supervision of the University but that by itself is not tantamount to nor would result in administrative subordination to the state Government. The Railway Degree college, Lalaguda is administered by the south Central Railways. ( 9 ) AS the grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is the denial of her re- designation from the post of Laboratory assistant to the post of Demonstrator and eventual promotion as a Lecturer, on whatever factors such grievance and claim for relief is founded, this grievance requires to be urged and adjudicated, in the first instance, the Central Administrative Tribunal in exercise of the jurisdiction inhering in such Tribunal under Section 14 of the administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short the Act ) in view of the decision of the supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 . This court has no jurisdiction, in view of the law declared in the above cited decision, to enter up the adjudication of the matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Tribunals under the Act. In the first instance, the petitioner is, consequently relegated to pursue her remedies before the Central Administrative tribunal, if so she desires. It is, however, made clear that merely because the petitioner is claiming that her case should be considered by the Railways on the basis of certain decisions taken by the State government in respect of colleges under the administrative control of the State government, the claims or grievances of the petitioner would not fall beyond the jurisdiction of Central Administrative tribunal. The Central Administrative tribunal would be obligated to consider these claims of the petitioner also and adjudicate upon them. The Central Administrative tribunal would be obligated to consider these claims of the petitioner also and adjudicate upon them. ( 10 ) NONE of the observations in this order constitute an expression by this Court on the merits of the petitioner s case and it is for the Central Administrative Tribunal, if the petitioner chooses to approach it to consider the petitioner s pleas and decide upon them on their own merits. ( 11 ) ON the analysis above, this Court finds that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court at this stage. It is accordingly dismissed with liberty to approach the Central Administrative tribunal. No order as to costs.