ORDER 21.03.2017. In this Writ Appeal, the appellants have prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 21.01.2015 passed by the Ho9n’ble Single Judge in OJC No.15595 of 1998. 2. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that OJC No.15595 of 1998 was filed by the respondent with a prayer to quash the notification under Annexure-2 attached to the said writ petition. In the alternative, the respondent had prayed therein to declare the respondent as qualified in the written test for Grade ‘C’ category post.Annexure-2 attached to OJC No.15595 of 1998 clearly revealed that it dealt with the subject-matter of recruitment of physically handicapped persons to Group-‘C’ category posts under Railways. The appellants filed a counter on 26.7.1999 taking a plea that since the case revolved around recruitment to civil services under the Union of India, it came under the exclusive jurisdiction under the Central Administrative Tribunal. The appellants accordingly took the stand in Paragraph-9 of the counter filed in OJC No.15595 of 1998 that since the respondent had approached the wrong forum, the said writ application was liable to the dismissed. Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that though the Hon’ble Single Judge at Paragraph-4 of the judgment noted about such submissions made on behalf of the appellants, however, the Hon’ble Single Judge without deciding such issue as to maintainability of the above noted writ petition has disposed of the said writ petition with certain directions. In such back ground, he prayed that the order of Hon’ble Single Judge ought to be set aside on this short point. In this context, Mr. Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others as reported in AIR 1997 SC1125. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Prativa Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent defended the impugned judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case and further submitted that non-availing of alternative remedy by way of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be held out as against the respondent as notwithstanding such remedy the respondent can always approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in appropriate cases. Thus, she submitted that the respondent has done no wrong in approaching the High Court directly even if an alternative efficacious remedy is available. She further relied on the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Tirath Raj, H.P.S.E.B., Ridge (E) Sub Division and others v. H.P. State Electricity Board and others reported in 1989 (4) SLR 360 and judgments of this Court pronounced in Sarada Bindhani v. Tahasildar, Nilagiri, Balasore and three others reported in 2013 (I) OLR 71 in Lala Sachikanta Chand v. State of Orissa and others reported in 2013 (II) OLR 314 . Ms. Prativa Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that instead of setting aside the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge, the respondent may be allowed the benefits of the order passed in one case filed by one Meena Mohanty, i.e., OJC No.9290 of 1997 against the Railways vis-a-vis self same recruitment process flowing from Annexure-2 attached to OJC No.15595 of 1998. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar (supra) has clearly laid down that the Tribunals constituted under Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 shall act like Courts of ‘first instance’ in respect of areas of law for which they have been constituted and it will not be open for the litigants to directly approach the High Court by overlooking the jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal. Here, a perusal of Annexure-2 attached to OJC No.15595 of 1998 clearly shows that the subject-matter of the case relates to recruitment to Group ‘C’ category of posts under the Railways. Further in a case where casual typists employed on daily wage basis under the Central Railways approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court by filing writ petitions challenging termination of their services and when such writ petitions were allowed by the High Court, the said judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Deep Chand Pandey and another reported in AIR 1993 SC 382 holding that the remedy of such casual typists employed on daily wage basis lied before the Central Administrative Tribunal and not before the High Court in the background of provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.There, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of such employees. Admittedly, in the present case, the subject matter revolved around recruitment to fill up of group ‘C’ posts under the Railwaysl.As per Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, it is clear that Central Administrative Tribunal has all the jurisdiction to decide the matters relatging to recruitment to any civil services of the Union and to any civil posts uhndere the Union.There is no dispute that the posts for which the recruitment was advertised under Annexure-2 attached to OJC No.15595 of 1998 were/are civil posts under the Union. Keeping in mind the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported above, we are of the opinion that OJC No.15595 of 1998 was clearly not maintainable before this Court. It may be noted that the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered its decision in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) on 18.3.1997 and OJC No.15595 of 1998 was filed on 12.11.1998 before this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that OJC No.15595 of 1998 was clearly not maintainable before this Court. With regard to submission of Ms. Prativa Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent that existence of alternative remedy is no bar for this Court to entertain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we can only say that such submission has no legs to stand in the background of the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar (supra) which clearly debars the litigants from directly approaching this Court. With regard to the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Tirath Raj, H.P.s.E.BN., Ridge (E) Sub Division and others v. H.P. State Electricity Board and others reported in 1989 (4) SLR 360, we can only say with great respect that the position of law has completely changed after authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deep Chand Pandey and another (supra) and L. Chandra Kumar (supra) as discussed earlier. Now, the position is no litigant would be allowed to approach the High Court directly over-looking Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 when the subject matter is covered under the said Act. Therefore, the decision relied in the case of Tirath Raj, H.P.S.E.B., Ridge (E) Sub Division (supra) is of no help to the respondent. Now, the position is no litigant would be allowed to approach the High Court directly over-looking Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 when the subject matter is covered under the said Act. Therefore, the decision relied in the case of Tirath Raj, H.P.S.E.B., Ridge (E) Sub Division (supra) is of no help to the respondent. With regard to the decision rendered by this Court in Sarada Bindhani (supra) and Lala Sachikanta Chand (supra), it can only be said that the factual scenario in both the cases are completely different and those do not pertain to recruitment to civil posts under the Indian Railways/Union of India. Further, in the background of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deep Chand Pandey and another (supra) and L. Chandra Kumar (supra), we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot derive any benefit from the above noted two decision of this Court. Further, in those cases administrative remedy by way of appeal was available, but here a quasi judicial remedy is available before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 6. With regard to submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent be allowed the benefits of the order passed in OJC No.9290 of 1997 filed by one Meena Mohanty, on calling for records from Registry, we found that the said writ petition was filed by one Akshaya Kumar Kar for allowing him to attend the interview for being appointed as Primary School Teacher. However, it has been found out by the Registry that Meena Mohanty had filed OJC No.15564 of 1998 involving Annexure-2 attached to OJC No.15595 of 1998.The same was disposed of on 25.8.1999 granting her liberty to move Central Administrative Tribunal as the subject matter of dispute came within the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal. 7. For all these reasons the Writ Appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 21.01.2016 rendered in OJC No.15595 of 1998 is set aside. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the entire case records in OJC No.15595 of 1998 be transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack and we request the learned Tribunal to dispose of the said case after registering the same as a Transfer Application, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the case record. Appeal allowed.