1 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7663/2007. Narendra Kumar Gehlot Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 27th November 2007. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Nitin Trivedi, for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT: The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, working with the Colonisation Department having been transferred from the office of the Assistant Commissioner (Colonisation), Kolayat, to Colonisation Tehsil, Ramgarh No.2 by the order dated 03.11.2007 (Annex.2) seeks to question the said transfer order on the grounds that the same has been issued only in order to accommodate the respondent No.4 who was earlier transferred to the Colonisation Tehsil, Ramgarh No.2 but did never joined thereat; that without implementation or cancellation of the earlier transfer order in relation to the respondent No.4, fresh order as made on 03.11.2007 (Annex.2) could not have been issued; that the petitioner has been placed at the present posting only in pursuance of the order dated 31.07.2007 (Annex.1) and within about three months, his transfer to another place clearly amounts to a case of frequent transfers; that there is no administrative exigency for transferring the petitioner nor any administrative exigency is spelt out in the order impugned; and that the transfer order has been issued on 03.11.2007 though the Government has imposed a ban on transfer of the employees like the petitioner from 01.11.2007. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner having urged on the grounds aforesaid was posed a question about availability of the alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal to which learned counsel responded with the submissions that of course the remedy of appeal is available but the Bench of the Tribunal supposed to hear the matters of the present nature being not functioning, such remedy cannot be said to be an efficacious one in the present set of circumstances and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to maintain a writ petition before this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made, this Court is clearly of opinion that for the grounds noted supra the petitioner could have filed an appeal before the Tribunal concerned; and there appears no special reason or circumstance wherefor the matter be entertained directly in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The submission about non- functioning of the Bench of the Tribunal is not convincing for the reason that the petitioner has not filed any such appeal before the Tribunal nor made a request to the Tribunal to take up the matter for consideration and without filing an appeal before the Tribunal concerned, the petitioner cannot assume that the matter would not be heard. For being not inclined to entertain the matter in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, this Court would not make any comment on the merits of the grounds sought to be urged by the petitioner leaving it open for him to take resort to the alternative remedies in accordance with law. Exercise of writ jurisdiction in this matter is refused; and the petition is rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/