Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the interim order passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal dt. 18.11.2009. According to the petitioner, the appeal was in competent as the affected party i.e. present petitioner was not impleaded as party in the appeal. It is also submitted that there was no administrative exigency and that ground was factually wrong. It is also submitted that the petitioner through his counsel entered case at before the Tribunal and without hearing the petitioner, the impugned order was passed.
(3.) The grounds which are raised by the respondents in his appeal before the Tribunal are sub justice before the Tribunal and cannot be examined here. Here in this case, the interim order was passed by the Tribunal after hearing the petitioner which is apparent from the order itself. If the petitioner's contention is that the petitioner was not heard, then he should have first moved an application before the Tribunal pointing out that he was not heard and the fact recorded in the order is wrong. The petitioner cannot challenge the statement of fact recorded in the order straightaway in the writ petition without challenging the same before the concerned authority.;