[2025:RJ-JP:6840] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2519/2025 Shakir Miyan S/o Masood Ahmed, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Near Masjid, Muneer Khan Mohalla Rajban, Tonk (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Secondary Education, Tonk. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 17/02/2025 1. The present petition is filed seeking the following relief: “1. The impugned order dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of the humble petitioner, in the interest of justice. 2. The respondent-District Education Officer (Headquarter) Tonk may be directed to relieve the humble petitioner for joining at DIET Tonk pursuant to the order dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure-2), in the interest of justice. 3. The respondent- Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner may be directed to extend the last date of joining at DIET Tonk pursuant to the order dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure-2), in the interest of justice. 4. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.” [2025:RJ-JP:6840] (2 of 3) [CW-2519/2025] 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, it is noted that the petitioner would fall under the definition of ‘government servant’, as prescribed under Section 2(c) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act 1976 (for short “Act of 1976”), and the lis in question is also covered under the definition of ‘service matters’, as prescribed under Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976, which has been given a wide meaning by Division Bench of this Court in Jahangir Ali Khan vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (DBSAW No. 662/2022; decided on 25.05.2022). 3. The exercise of writ jurisdiction is fundamentally discretionary in nature. The limitations placed on Court's decision to exercise or refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction are self- imposed. Although learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contends that existence of an alternate remedy, whether adequate or not, does not create an absolute bar on maintainability of writ petition nor does it alter the fundamentally discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction, but it remains a discretion nonetheless. Therefore, since an alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. 4. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal (for short “RAT”) for redressal of his/her grievance. If the petitioner files appropriate petition before the RAT within a period of 30 days, the RAT shall adjudicate the [2025:RJ-JP:6840] (3 of 3) [CW-2519/2025] same on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months. 5. Needless to say, no prejudice to be caused to either sides based on any observations made hereinabove. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/124