Bilal nazki, J.
1. These matters came before us by way of a reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The petitioners in W.P. No. 20323/2001 are Assistant Commandants and the petitioner in W.P. No. 24791/2001 is Inspector of Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force. This Force has been created under an Act of State legislature being Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force Act, 1991. When these writ petitions came to be heard by the learned Single Judge, it appears that, the respondents have taken objection that in view of the judgment in L. Chandra Kumar's case (L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, : [1997]228ITR725(SC) ) the petitioners should have gone to Administrative Tribunal in the first instance. The learned Single Judge, however, made a reference as he had doubts as to whether the State Administrative Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear the matters concerning a member of the Special Protection Force.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy, we will have to look into the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 in the context of appropriate entries in the Constitution of India. The Administrative Tribunals Act creates a mechanism for establishment of Tribunals, for adjudication of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to Public Services and posts in connection with the Union or any State or local or other authority. Sections 2 is couched in negative way and lays down that the Act shall not apply to various groups of persons, mentioned in the section. On first principle that would mean that, the Act would apply to everybody appointed to Public Services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State except there mentioned in Section 2. Section 2(a) lays down; 'any member of the naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union.' So, there is no dispute that the Act shall not apply to any member of the Naval, Military or Air forces, but it appears that an argument was made that, since the petitioners belong to armed forces therefore they were also excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which is not correct and is fallacious. This provision relates to entry No. 2 to List-I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution which says; 'Naval, military and air forces; any other armed forces of the Union.' Only Parliament has the power to legislate with respect to Naval, military, air forces and any other forces of the Union, State legislature has no such power. On the other hand, the Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force Act, 1991 has been enacted in terms of power available to State legislature under Entry No. 1 of List-11 of Seventh Schedule which lays down; 'Public order (but not including the use of any naval, military or air force or any other armed force of the Union or of any other force subject to the control of the Union or of any contingent or unit thereof in aid of the civil power). ' Therefore, the Force created under the Andhra Pradesh Special Protection Force Act is not a Force of which a mention is made in Section 2(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is not sufficient that a particular Force should be an armed force so as to remain out of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, it is further necessary that such armed force should be of the Union of India. Admittedly the petitioners do not belong to a Force of Union of India, therefore the matters concerning their service shall have to be decided by the State Administrative Tribunal in the first instance. The reference is accordingly answered.
3. The writ petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Tribunal.