Judgment : KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, C.J. :- This writ petition is filed impugning the action of respondent No.1 taken under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983. The action was necessitated to be taken because the unofficial respondent being a retired employee of the State Government made a complaint to the Lokayukta in not taking action by the writ petitioner before us in fixing his seniority in services. Therefore, indisputably the complaint relates to the service condition and service matter pertains to the State Government. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner says that going by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983, this sort of dispute cannot be entertained at all. In addition thereto, he says that even assuming the Lokayukta has been conferred with such power to entertain this sort of complaint, but by virtue of provisions of Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it cannot have any jurisdiction in any manner whatsoever. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Lokayukta, on the other hand, contends that if the language of statute is read carefully it will appears that inaction on the part of the State Government or any officials of the State Government in relation to any matter can be examined by the Lokayukta. 4. Therefore, the point which has fallen for our consideration in this matter is whether the 1st respondent/Lokayukta has got any jurisdiction to entertain this sort of complaint or not? 5. No one appears on behalf of the unofficial respondent though service has been effected. 6. For the time being, we are not examining the scope or purport of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 under which respondent No.1 was appointed. Suffice it to say that under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in no uncertain terms jurisdiction of any authority except mentioned in the said Act has been excluded. 6. For the time being, we are not examining the scope or purport of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 under which respondent No.1 was appointed. Suffice it to say that under Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in no uncertain terms jurisdiction of any authority except mentioned in the said Act has been excluded. It is appropriate to record that the scope and purview of the Tribunal Act was also examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 and it has been held amongst other that the ouster jurisdiction clause mentioned in Section 28 cannot be construed to have been made applicable for writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and this jurisdiction cannot be taken away by any manner whatsoever by the Parliament. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also stated in the interest of administration of justice that one cannot approach directly the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and he has to approach the Tribunal first and thereafter, if so advised, the Division Bench of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not permitted any other forum except the Supreme Court and the High Courts to entertain any dispute of this nature. Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to be reproduced as under: "Exclusion of jurisdiction of Courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.-On and from the date from which any jurisdiction, power and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any service or post or service matters concerning members of any service or persons appointed to any service or post, no Court except- (a) the Supreme Court, or (b) any Industrial Tribunal, Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or any other corresponding law for the time being in force shall have, or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such requirement or such service matters". 7. The ouster jurisdiction is very clear and, therefore, the Lokayukta inherently lacks jurisdiction and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is a latter one. 7. The ouster jurisdiction is very clear and, therefore, the Lokayukta inherently lacks jurisdiction and the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is a latter one. Obviously, apart from going by the language of the section applying the test of interpretation of statute, any provision of Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 overrides the former statute. Therefore, any order or action taken by the 1st respondent-Loyakuta is a nullity and the same is hereby set aside. It would be open for the unofficial respondent to approach the appropriate Tribunal, if so advised, in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.