The absorption of a surplus Government servant is a matter that falls within the scope of 'service matters' as defined in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1976, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal.

1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 9.1.1990 and 29.1.1990 (Anexures 6 and 7). He has further prayed that the respondent-State Government be directed to absorb him on the post of Inspector, Commercial Taxes or in any other department according to his turn on the basis of 'first come first serve' as soon as the vacancies become available and intimated to the General Administration Department.

2. Petitioner has stated that he was appointed as LDC in the Industries Department by order dated 20.4.78 after his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. He was confirmed on this post by order dated 2.7.81. He was promoted as Industries Extension Officer vide order dated 3.1.1985 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6-A of the Rajasthan Industries Subordinate Service Rules, 1968. He was declared surplus from the Industries Department w.e.f. 1.3.88 in pursuance of the order dated 8.3.88 issued by the Director, Industries. Initially, he was directed to report to the Collector, Jaipur and thereafter the General Administration Department by way of transfer. Petitioner has been absorbed as Inspector against the vacancy available in that department vide order dated 9.1.90 of the General Administration Department. However, the Registrar Cooperative Societies returned the petitioner and 29 other Industries Extension Officers after accommodating 10 of the absorbed persons. The General Administration Department in its turn, sent the petitioner back to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for his posting.This was done by a communication dated 29.1.90. Petitioner has stated that as per the settled policy and the Government instructions, as soon as the vacancies are intimated by any department, the General Administration Department is required to fill up the same. By a letter dated 9.5.88, Devsthan Department had intimated availability of 9 vacancies of Inspectors. The Commercial Taxes Department had intimated availability of 69 posts of Commercial Taxes Inspector vide letter dated 17.9.1988. 17 vacancies of Enforcement Inspector were intimated by the Food and Civil Supplies Department vide letter dated 27.9.89 and there were 31 vacancies of Inspector in the Industries Department between 1.4.1988 to 27.9.1989. In all 123 surplus hands were available to the General Administration Department and they could have easily been absorbed in these departments much before communication of vacancies of Inspector in the Cooperative Department by the Registrar, Co-perative Societies vide his letter dated 23.11.1989. The Registrar had intimated availability of 79 vacancies in the cadre of Inspectors in his department. Against these vacancies, candidature of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons was considered and that led to the issuance of the order dated 9.1.90 and communication dated 29.1.90.Petitioner has stated in his petition that it was the obligation of the General Administration Department to have made absorption against the vacancies, which were intimated to it by the Commercial Taxes, Department, Industries Department, Food & Civil Supplies Department and Devsthan Department. Instead of doing that, the General Administration Department has arbitrarily and capriciously absorbed the petitioner and other similarly situated persons in the Cooperative Department. This action of the respondent is liable to be declared as unconstitutional.

3. On a show cause notice issued by this court, the respondent has, in the first instance, raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition on account of availability of alternative remedy of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. According to the respondent, when an alternative effective remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no justification for the writ petition being entertained. On the merits of the case, the respondent has asserted that the petitioner as well as other pers