1. - Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 6801/2007, 6819/2007, 6820/2007, 6821/2007, 6822/2007, 6823/2007, and 6831/2007 preferred against the transfer order in relation to each of the petitioner, proceeding essentially on common ground questioning the competence of the State Government to make such an order, though some of the petitioners have also pressed upon their individual but similar nature grounds, are taken up for disposal by this common order, more particularly for the reason that this Court is not inclined to entertain the matters in extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction because of availability of alternative remedy.

2. The petitioners, working on the post of teacher have been ordered to be transferred from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchayat Samiti by the impugned transfer orders issued by the State Government in its Panchayati Raj Department. The petitioners seek to question the transfer order essentially on the ground, as vehemently argued by the learned counsel, that the impugned order made by the State Government is without jurisdiction and is in violation of Rule 289 and Rule 336 (26) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996); that under the scheme of the Rules of 1996, the name of the employee desiring transfer or desired to be transferred within the District is to be communicated to District Establishment Committee by the Panchayat Samiti and no such communication has been made by the Panchayat Samiti the petitioner is working with; that the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad is the only competent authority to effect such transfers and the order issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government is without jurisdiction. In each of these petitions, the petitioners have also impleaded private respondent No. 4 and have asserted that the transfer order has been made only in order to accommodate the said respondent No. 4. In CWP No. 6820/2007 it has further been urged that the wife of the petitioner is serving in the same Panchayat Samiti and, therefore, transfer of the petitioner is against the policy of the Government. Likwise, in CWP No. 6831/2007 it has been urged that the husband of the petitioner is a handicapped no-son and is serving in the same Panchayat Samiti and, therefore, transfer of the petitioner is against the policy of the Government. In relation to the case of petitioner in CWP No. 6822/2007 it has further been argued that the petitioner is subjected to frequent transfers. Upon this Court expressing its reservations for entertaining these matter directly in extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction particularly when the petitioners have available the alternative remedy of appeal before the Service Appellate 'Tribunal, learned counsel submitted that alternative remedy is not a rule of law but is only a self-imposed restriction, and is not of bar unless there are involved some disputed questions of fact. Learned counsel submitted that when condition precedent for exercise of a jurisdiction are not fulfilled, such exercise of jurisdiction being wholly unauthorized, could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. Learned Counsel has referred to and relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer & Anr., AIR 1961 SC 372 ; Maharashtra State Judicial Services Assn. & Ors. v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 244 ; T.N. State Transport Corporation v. Neethivilangan, Kumbakonam, (2001) 9 SCC 99 .

3. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the matter, this Court is unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel and this Court is of the view that there is no reason where for the petitioners be permitted to question. their transfer orders by way of writ petitions while ignoring the specific alternative remedy of appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal.

4. The submissions in relation to the operation of the statute as suggested on behalf of the petitioners do not prima