Manojit Bhuyan, J. (Oral)- Heard Mr.B.R.Dey, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Debroy, learned counsels appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. F.U.Barbhuyan, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. 2. This appeal was admitted for hearing on 3.9.2003 on the following substantial questions of law: " (1) Whether the Civil Court can declare the appointment of the appellant as illegal in violation of the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Assam Administrative Tribunal Act, 1977 read with Section 2(e) of the said Act which includes appointment as condition of service? (II) Whether the suit is maintainable in absence of U/S 80 C.P.C. notice? 3. The learned counsel for the parties, at the very outset agrees that an answer to the first substantial question of law would sufficiently determine the fate of this appeal. 4. The facts in brief is that the respondents/plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No.62/1994 challenging the appointment of the appellant (impleaded as defendant no.7 in the suit) to the post of Lower Division Assistant (L.D.A.) in the office of the South Karimganj Irrigation Division under the Irrigation Department, Government of Assam. According to the respondents/plaintiffs they have been working as Muster Roll Workers in the said Division and by virtue of their seniority, the appellant/defendant no.7 could not have been appointed as such. Prayer in the suit was for a decree for declaring the appointment of the appellant/defendant no.7 as illegal, being in breach of norms of seniority and that the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to be appointed by promotion to the post of LDA. 5. The suit was contested by the defendants and separate written statements were filed by the appellant/defendant no.7 as well as by the defendant nos. 1 to 7 jointly. The grounds urged in the written statements are basically with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit in view of the provisions under Assam Administrative (and Pension)Tribunal Act, 1977 and for that matter it was also urged that the respondents/plaintiffs did not have locus standi to institute the suit. 6. The learned Trial Court framed as many as 4 Issues and Issue No.2 thereof pertains to the maintainability of the suit in its present form. The said Issue was decided by holding that there was no legal infirmity and the suit was not barred under the provisions of the Assam Administrative (and Pension)Tribunal Act, 1977. 6. The learned Trial Court framed as many as 4 Issues and Issue No.2 thereof pertains to the maintainability of the suit in its present form. The said Issue was decided by holding that there was no legal infirmity and the suit was not barred under the provisions of the Assam Administrative (and Pension)Tribunal Act, 1977. The said finding was based upon the premises that the respondents/plaintiffs are Muster Roll Labourers employed on no work no pay basis having no service facilities and it was only upon this finding the Trial Court held that the suit was maintainable. The Appeal filed by the appellant/defendants separately i.e. Title Appeal No.7/1997 by the appellant/defendant no.7 and Title Appeal No.11/1997 by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 in the suit, stood dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17.5.2003. The issue no. 2 pertaining to maintainability of the suit did not suffer any adverse opinion of the First Appellate Court. 7. On second appeal before this Court the substantial questions of law so formulated is basically on the maintainability of the suit in view of the bar under Section 9(2) read with Section 2(e) of the Assam Administrative (and Pension)Tribunal Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1977'). 8. For better appreciation as to the question involved, it would be apposite to refer to Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the said Act of 1997, which reads as under: "9. Finality of decision and bar of suit, power of review of its own order and transfer of pending proceedings- (1)(a)........... (b)........................... (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no Civil Court or other authority shall entertain any civil suit or other proceedings with respect to any matter relating to any condition of service of any civil servant or question in any form any order passed by the Tribunal in any appeal or review with respect to any matter or with respect to any other matter which arises out of the exercise of powers under the Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, all suits or other proceedings with respect of any matter relating to any condition of service of any Civil servant and which are pending before any Civil Court or other authority on the date of coming into force of the Act, shall stand transferred to the Tribunal and the Civil Court or other authority before whom such a suit or proceeding is pending shall transfer all relevant and connected papers and records to the Tribunal and thereupon the Tribunal shall decide the suit and proceeding in the same manner as if they were appeals referred under the provisions of the Act." (4)........................................" 9. It would also be apposite to extract Section 2(b) and Section 2(e) of the Act of 1997, which defines the expression "Civil Servant" and "Conditions of service" respectively: "2.(b) "Civil Servant" means a person who is or has been a member of a civil service or who holds or has held a civil post in connection with the affairs of the State of Assam and includes any such person on foreign service, a person whose services have been temporarily placed at the disposal of a local or other authority, any person in the service of a local or other authority whose services have been temporarily placed at the disposal of the State Government, a person in service under the State Government on a contract and a person who has retired from the Government service elsewhere and has been re-employed under the State Government but does not include employees of the Gauhati High Court, employees of the Assam Legislative Assembly Secretariat, employees of the Assam Public Service Commission, persons in the All India Service and other Civil services of the Indian Union, or persons of Civil services of other State Government serving on deputation in Assam." "2(e) Conditions of service" includes all matters relating to the (i) Appointment, seniority, confirmation and termination of service [and pension matters] of civil servant: " 10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of law clearly shows that there is an express bar of the Civil Court to entertain any suit in respect of any matters relating to any conditions of service of any civil servant. The catch words being 'conditions of service' and 'civil servant', it would now be appropriate to turn the definition of the said expression. The catch words being 'conditions of service' and 'civil servant', it would now be appropriate to turn the definition of the said expression. In so far as Section 2(e) is concerned, the expressions 'conditions of service' encompasses appointment, seniority, confirmation and termination of service [and pension matters] of civil servant and the expression 'civil servant' is defined, inter alia, to include persons temporarily placed at the disposal of local or other authority or at the disposal of the State Government as well as a person in service under the State Government on a contract. 11. In the instant case, the appellant/defendant no.7 was appointed to the post of LDA in the Irrigation Division of the State of Assam and apparently his appointment as such falls within the expression under Section 2(e) of the Act. Further, his appointment as LDA in the service of the State Government under Irrigation Division also falls within the definition of 'civil servant' as given in Section 2(b) of the Act of 1977. The position being such, there is no gainsaying that it is not the civil court but the Tribunal constituted under the Act that alone has the jurisdiction to try the case of the respondents/plaintiffs, inasmuch as, such suit is expressly barred under Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act of 1977. 12. In this connection, learned senior counsel also places reliance upon the decision in Jitendra Nath Goswami v. Dhirendra Nath Saikia and ors, reported in 1993 1 GLR 448 . Referring to paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment, learned senior counsel submits that the bar of jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of any matters regarding 'conditions of service' of 'civil servant' have been reaffirmed in the aforesaid case law. 13. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the records as well as the provisions under the Act of 1977, the substantial question of law with regard to the bar under Section 9(2) of the Act finds favour with the appellant. Interference of the concurrent findings of the Courts below is warranted as there has been substantial error resulting in error in decision. The concurrent findings, on the fact of it, are also perverse. Interference of the concurrent findings of the Courts below is warranted as there has been substantial error resulting in error in decision. The concurrent findings, on the fact of it, are also perverse. The Courts below have utterly failed to ascertain the scope and ambit of Section 9 of the Act of 1977 and such failure have had an adverse impact on the verdict of the case. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed and the common judgment and decree dated 17.5.2003 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Title Appeal No.7/1997 and Title Appeal No.11/1997 is set aside, however, without any order as to costs.