1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14887/2010 Mahendra Kumar Jain Versus The State of Rajasthan and others DATE OF ORDER --- December 13,2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.J.K.Yadav, for the petitioner Mr.Ganesh Meena, Govt.Counsel Mr.Akhil Simlote, for the respondent No.3 BY THE COURT Mr.Ganesh Meena, Govt. Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.Akhil Simlote, Advocate is appearing for the respondent No.4. Thus, service is complete. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.1.2010 whereby the petitioner was transferred to Mundawar (Dausa) and the respondent No.3 was kept at Ganpati Nagar, Jaipur against which representation was filed and the same was rejected on 1.10.10 ignoring the factual aspect and different judicial orders passed in his favour, in pursuance to which the petitioner was relieved on 22.10.2010. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') vide order dated 1.2.2010 directed the petitioner to file representation before the State authoity which which was ordered to be decided within two months and uptil then, the implementation of the order dated 6.1.2010 was stayed. But the aforesaid representation has 2 been rejected in ignorance of the factual aspect and different judicial orders passed by the Tribunal in his favour, more particularly, order dated 12.10.2009 whereby Appeal No.2695/2007 filed by the respondent No.3 Amarjeet Singh against the order dated 11.10.2007 was dismissed as having become infructuous and the same attained finality on account of not filing any writ petition. CWP No.9720/2009 filed by Amarjeet Singh against the order dated 14.7.2009 in favour of the petitioner, has also been dismissed as having become infructuous on 1.12.2010. Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the order of rejection of the representation gives fresh cause of action to the petitioner and the alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal is available to the petitioner. Counsel for the State as well as private parties submit that in case the appeal is filed on 14.12.2010 and copy of the same is given to them, they will appear before the Tribunal on 16.12.2010 for making their submissions on the admision as well as consideration of the interim relief. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and in my view, alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal is available to the petitioner. In case the petitioner files an appeal before the Tribunal up to 14.12.2010, then the same shall be listed on 16.12.2010 before the Tribunal for admission and consideration of the interim relief. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of not availing alternate remedy, with the above observation. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल