1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R LEELA RAM MISTRY v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS. S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1148/2008 Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. DATE OF ORDER 22/02/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Girish Sankhala, for Petitioner. BY THE COURT: The matter has come up on an application for impleading Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Desuri as party-respondent. The application is allowed. The Pradhan is ordered to be arrayed as the respondent and amended cause title already filed, is taken for consideration for admission. 2 As per the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was taken up and heard finally. The petitioner preferred this writ petition to challenge the order dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure 2), by which petitioner is relieved to report to Zila Parishad, Pali. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has not been passed by the competent authority as the petitioner was appointed by the State Government in Agriculture Department and, during the course of deputation with Panchayat, the order impugned has been passed by the Vikas Adhikari who is not competent authority. The other ground is that the impugned order is nothing but outcome of mala fide of the respondents' officials and, in that regard, specific allegations have been made in para 9 of the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that all the officials of the respondents are of same caste, having annoyance against the petitioner therefor, only impugned order has been passed. It is further submitted that even at the instance of the Pradhan, the petitioner could not have been relieved as Pradhan is not the competent authority. Apart from the fact that wrong allegations have been made against the petitioner in the impugned order thus, the order becomes punitive and otherwise an outcome of 3 the malafadie of the respondents. Thus deserves to be set aside. It is also urged that in a similar matter bearing S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.2984/2006, Anand Kumar v. The State of Rajasthan & Others, similar type of order was stayed by this Court and, thereupon, the writ petition was also allowed on 18/05/2007. The petitioner has further urged that it is otherwise a case of frequent transfers of petitioner from one place to another. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, it is clear that so far as Annexure 2 is concerned, it is nothing but a releving order of the petitioner for reporting to the Zila Parishad, Pali. A specific reason for passing the said order has been given, i.e., that the petitioner used to disobey the order and come on duty under the influence of liquor. The order impugned was passed with the approval of the Pradhan. Earlier also, the orders were passed by the same authority, i.e., Vikas Adhikari, on the approval of the Pradhan and petitioner had joined his service pursuant to that. However, it is for the first time that the impugned order has been challenged on the ground of competence. The perusal of the order shows that petitioner is relieved by the Vikas Adhikari, for this specific reason given therein and, if the petitioner is aggrieved of the contents of the order, at least it was necessary for him to make a representation to the higher authority to state 4 that whatever allegations have been made against him, are incorrect and the order is an outcome of the malafadies of the officials. However, without making any representation to refute the allegations, the petitioner has approached this Court, more so, when if, at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, alternative remedy before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal exists. However, even the said remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that firstly, the petitioner has failed to avail of the alternative remedy as exists under the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, thus the present writ petition is not maintainable, more so when no representation was given before filing of this wit petition. As such, the present petition, being not maintainable deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, petitioner would be at liberty to avail alternative remedy. (M.N.BHANDARI),J. scd 5