1 D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1595/2008. [NATHA RAM CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS.] Date of Order : 24.03.2008. HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. MUNISHWAR NATHBHANDARI (In Chamber) Mr.C.P.Trivedi for the petitioner. Dr. P.S.Bhati for the respondent. ***** This matter has come up on an application moved by respondent No. 3 under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India for seeking vacation of interim order dated 12.03.2008. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has already submitted appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable hence deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that though the petitioner has moved appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur but due to non-sitting of the Tribunal, the petitioner is unable to get any relief. It is submitted that for hearing the transfer matter full corm of the Tribunal is required. In view of the above, it is contended that since remedy as otherwise been focused by the respondent is not available to the petitioner at present 2 thus the writ petition should not be dismissed so as to make petitioner remedyless. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent in rejoinder is that if the Tribunal is not sitting then also the petitioner can at the best be given protection till first hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal but so far as the present writ petition is concerned, that cannot be maintained. After considering the rival submissions of the parties I am of the opinion that since remedy of appeal exist before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal and infact petitioner has already preferred appeal thus so far as the present writ petition is concerned, cannot be maintained but at the same time the Court is concern, with the fact that the petitioner should not be made remedyless in view of the facts stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal is not sitting with corm required to hear the transfer matters. In view of the above fact, while disposing of the present writ petitioner the petitioner is given interim protection by way of direction to the respondents to maintain the status quo as it exists today in regard to the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No.3 till the constitution and sitting of the Tribunal with the proper corm. It is made clear that the interim order passed above, shall continue only till first listing of the case 3 before the Tribunal after required corm and sitting. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of. However, the Tribunal is given direction to hear this matter on priority. [M.N.BHANDARI],J. mamta