This petition challenged an order of transfer in a service matter. The bench held that the matter falls under an alternative remedy under Section 2(f) of the Act 1976. Consequently, the High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the petition.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP 13723/2009
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13723/2009 Miss. Krishna Choudhary Versus. The State of Rajasthan & ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 05/11/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, for petitioner.
Instant petition has been filed assailing
order of transfer impugned dt. 20/10/2009.
It is a service matter covered under Section
2(f) of the Act 1976 which provides remedy of
appeal before Tribunal.
In view of efficacious/alternative remedy
available to petitioner, this court is not
inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Consequently, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
Raghu-13723--CW-2009--final.doc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised in lieu of alternative remedy under Section 2(f) of the Act 1976 in a service matter.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India given the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Miss. Krishna Choudhary
The State of Rajston
AJAY RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court