GOVERDHAN BAHARI KAUSHIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners by this petition are praying for quashing and setting aside of the seniority list prepared on 19. 3. 97 in the cadre of Principals Sr. Sec. Schools.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioners in the Court on 29. 8. 97. The writ petition was admitted ex parte which is clear from the order dated 19. 9. 97.

(3.) THE petitioners have made an incorrect statement of fact in para No. 21 of the writ petition. THE statement of fact made by the petitioners in this para are contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976. THE petitioners are not lay man. THE contents of para No. 21 are affirmed and verified to be true and correct on the basis of personal knowledge by the deponent. This affirmation and verification made of para No. 21 is not correct. It is no doubt true there is no statutory bar on entertaining direct writ petition by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in a case where the litigants has alternative remedy of appeal, revision, review etc. It is a self imposed restriction. But, direct writ petition can only be entertained by the Court in the matter where against the impugned order the litigants have efficacious alternative remedy available of appeal or revision in exceptional cases. THE litigant who directly files a petitioner in a service matter where statutory right of appeal is available, has to make out a exceptional case. Only in case, where Court is satisfied on the basis of the material produced by the litigant on the record that it is exceptional case it may entertain direct writ petition and not as a rule as what it is contended and claimed by the petitioners. THE petitioner have not made out any case of exceptional nature where this court may permit them to avail this extraordinary remedy in the case where statutory right of appeal is available against the impugned order. Infact it is to be stated in the petition. But on the other hand the petitioners have made a wrong statement of fact that they have not alternative remedy in the matter.