1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 526 of 2000 NISAR KHAN V/S STATE & ORS. Mr. PK LOHRA, for the appellant / petitioner None is present for the respondent Date of Order : 6.10.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE MRS. MEENA V. GOMBER,J. ORDER ----- This writ petition seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.3.2000 disposing of the writ petition by holding that in the judgment reported in 1999(2) RLW 1319 the learned Judge had already taken a view that alternative remedy in service matter is liable to be strictly followed and no writ petition can be directly entertained by this Court. Learned Single Judge was also of the view that the present matter is required to be adjudicated by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, and therefore, the petitioner was relegated to the alternative remedy of approaching the Tribunal, and the matter was ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal. A look at the writ petition shows that the controversy involved in the present matter is regarding validity of selection of private respondent in the cadre of R.A.S., and also interalia on the ground of availability of certain privileges to non gazetted in-service candidates. 2 Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 defines the expression “Service matter”. For convenience sub-section 2(f) is reproduced which reads as under:- “(f) “Service matter” means any one or more than one of the following matters relating to a Government servant :- (i) Seniority; (ii) Promotion; (iii)Confirmation; (iv)Fixation of pay; (v) An order denying or varying pay, allowances, pension and other service conditions to the disadvantage of a Government servant, otherwise than as a penalty; (vi) Cases of reversion while officiating in a higher service, grade or post to lower service, grade or post otherwise than as a penalty; (vii) Withholding the pension or denying the maximum pension otherwise than as the penalty; (viii) Any other matter notified by the Government.” A bare reading of this sub-section clearly shows that this comprehends cases post recruitment, and not regarding pre recruitment. or recruitment process, or validity of any recruitment exercise. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner had alternative remedy of approaching the Tribunal to which the petitioner has been 3 relegated. The result is that we are constrained to set aside the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is restored back to the file of the learned Single Judge. Since the matter is already very old, it is expected that the learned Single Judge would decide the matter at the earliest. ( MEENA V. GOMBER ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/