By the impugned orders, both the applications were dismissed.
The learned Advocate General did number respond.
As the points involved are the same, they were heard together and by this judgment both the appeals are disposed of.
By the impugned orders the High Court rejected two applications filed by the appellants for transfer of the writ petitions to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench.
By order dated January 24, 2002, this Court after hearing the companynsels for the parties issued numberice to the learned Attorney General of India and the Advocate General of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The High Court relying on a Full Bench decision of the same High Court in Kuldip Khud versus Masud Ahmad Chodhry Others 1994 JKLR 25 held that the writ companyrt has jurisdiction to decide service disputes of the present nature and, therefore, rejected the prayer for transfer holding that the writ petitions were maintainable.
The respondent No.1 in Civil Appeal No.5021 of 2001 and the sole respondent in Civil Appeal No.5448 of 2000 are the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya and as some dispute arose regarding their service companyditions, they filed two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court for adjudication.
The appellants are the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan for short Kendriya Vidyalaya and its officials.
Phukan, J. In these two appeals by special leave, two orders of the High Court of Jammu Kashmir at Jammu have been assailed.
