on matters in which constitutional issues were not raised, and particularly not to be allowed to adjudicate upon matters where the vires of legislations were in question. As the Supreme Court held, “ if such a view were to be adopted, it would be open for litigants to raise constitutional issues, many of which may be quite frivolous, to directly approach the High Courts and thus subvert the jurisdiction of the Tribunals ”. Moreover, observed the Supreme Court, even in these special branches of law, certain provisions of the Constitution would invariably, arise for consideration; for instance, in service matters, Articles 14, 15 and 16 would routinely be pressed into service. Rather than excluding such issues from the purview of the jurisdiction of Tribunals, therefore, the better alternative was found to be subjection of the decisions rendered by the Tribunals to judicial review by the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. This, it was observed, would “ensure that frivolous claims are filtered out through the process of adjudication in the Tribunal”. Keeping in view these factors, and following the proposal, mooted in its earlier decision in R.K. Jain v UOI16 , that “the possibility of an appeal from the Tribunal on questions of law to a Division Bench of a High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction and the Tribunal falls, be pursued”, the Supreme Court went on to hold, in para 91 of the report, that “all decisions of Tribunals, whether created pursuant to Article 323-A or Article 323-B of the Constitution, will be subject to High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular Tribunal falls”. This was clarified, in para 92, by further holding that
