[2026:RJ-JP:47] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19735/2025 Suman Mali D/o Shri Mangal Chand Mali, Basant Vihar Vistar, Ward No.48, Street No.8 (Lift Side) Sikar Rajaasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Directorate Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner, Rajasthan 3. The Principal District Education Officer, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DS Dhariwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 06/01/2026 1. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2025. 2. On query by the Court as to whether any alternate remedy is available or not, no satisfactory reply has been tendered. 3. 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. [2026:RJ-JP:47] (2 of 2) [CW-19735/2025] 662/2022; decided on 25.05.2022). Further, it is note-worthy that an alternate remedy is available as per Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. 4. 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. 5. 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 15 days, the RAT shall adjudicate the same on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /4