Honble MADAN, J. – The facts which are relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties briefly stated are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Weaving Master-cum-Designer. Drugget Carpet Production- cum-Demonstration Centre, Jaipur, by order dated 26.11.1957, and his services were placed on probation for one year w.e.f. 27.11.1957. The petitioner was confir- med on the post of Designer at Handicraft Development Centre, (Department of Industries), Jaipur, w.e.f. 1.4.1970. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent-cum- Designer, Handloom Design Centre, Kithoon, w.e.f. 14.5.1970, on which post he continued till he received his next promotion as Assistant Director (Technical) w.e.f. 28.3.1972. All the aforesaid promotions were made by the respondents on ad-hoc basis. (2). Consequent upon petitioners promotion earlier as Superintendent- cum-Designer, his lien on the post of Designer was suspended under Rule 17(b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951 (for short the `Rules) by order dated 9.2.1972. Subsequently one Atma Prasad Singh was appointed substantively on the post of Desig- ner vide order dated 15.2.1972. The post of Superintendent-cum-Designer was encadred post of the Industries Department. Since 22.8.1972 when the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Director in the Industries Department, he continued to discharge his duties on the same post till he retired from service of the said department on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st March, 1993. The petitioner has represented his matter for confirmation on the post of Assistant Director time and again and as and when the persons who were immediately placed below the petitioner in order of seniority were promoted to the post of Deputy Director. The petitioner had earlier aproached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1772/82, which was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one on 22.11.1982, which was filed on 11.5.1983 as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1480/83. That writ petition was decided on 3.9.1986. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition gave directions to the respondents to decide the matter of (i) petitioners confirmation on the post of Assistant Director within four months w.e.f. 3.9. 1986; (ii) thereafter to decide the matter of his seniority and (iii) after fixation of his seniority to decide the question of his eligibility for further promotion in accordance with rules. (3). 1986; (ii) thereafter to decide the matter of his seniority and (iii) after fixation of his seniority to decide the question of his eligibility for further promotion in accordance with rules. (3). It has been contended by the petitioner that inspite of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the order was not complied with within the stipulated time and he was compelled to move this Court by filing contempt petition vide D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 60/1987. While disposing of the contempt petition, the learn- ed Division Bench of this Court was of the view that since the question regarding the confirmation of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director had since already been decided by the respondents and question with regard to his seniority has also been tentatively decided, the contempt petition was dismissed being not maintainable on merits. While disposing of the contempt petition, this Court had taken note of the fact that the petitioners appointment on the post of Superintendent-cum-Designer was made substatively against the vacancy of the year 1985-86 and further by order dated 5.8.1987, the petitioner had since already been confirmed on the post of Assistant Director and the provisional seniority list had also been issued by the respondents followed by a fresh tentative seniority list dated 18.12.1988, and since the petitioner had already been heard by the department as regards the objections in respect of the aforesaid seniority list i.e. tentative and provisional seniority list, he had no grievance to advance either before the department or before the court. (4). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the above fact that the petitioners appointment on the post of Superintendent-cum-Designer was substantive against the vacancy of the year 1985-86 and he had also been confirmed on the promotional post of Assistant Director on 5.8.1987, consequent upon is having been promoted on the said post in March 1972. It has also not been disputed that when at the time of passing of the order dated 28.3.1972, the petitioner was confirmed as Assistant Director (Industries) he was holding the substantive post of Superintendent-cum-Designer and thereafter he had been promoted as Assistant Director and the respondent had, therefore, assigned the seniority year of 1985-86, instead of 1984-85 and this fact is fully borne out from the relevant documents on the record. (5). (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended at the bar that his confirmation on the post of Assistant Director w.e.f. 5.8.1987 was much de- layed resulting in injustice to the petitioner since he had been discharging his duties on the said post since 28.3.1972 and the persons junior to him have been promoted on higher post while his confirmation was delayed for reasons best known to the department. His further contention is that prior to his promotion as Assistant Director (Technical) he had been regularised as Superintendent-cum-Designer vide order dated 14.7.1987 while continuing on supernumerary post in the year 1985-86 and proposal for the same was sent to the department in the year 1972, and before any decision on the said proposal, could be taken, the said post was abolished w.e.f. 29.2.1980. He has challenged the delay caused in regularisation on the post of Superintendent-cum-Designer and also withholding his regularisation on the said post as unconstitutional and arbitrary. In the relief clause the petitioner has sought the issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to treat the petitioner as substantive Superintendent-cum-Designer w.e.f. 1.1.1972 and his confirmation on the post of Assistant Director (Technical) during the year 1976 and also the order dated 14.7.1987, by which his services were regula- rised on the said post against the vacancy of the year 1985-86, vide Annexure-3 and his inclusion in the seniority list pursuant to the recommendations of the D.P.C. vide order dated 5.8.87 marked Annexure-2 may be modified. (6). In reply to show cause notice, the respondents have raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground inter-alia that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in both the writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 1480/83 as well as in the present writ petition are analogous and since the directions given by this Court in earlier writ petition No. 1480/83, which already stand decided and finally disposed of vide order dated 3.9.1986, stand fully complied with, there was no justification for the petitioner to have agitated the same grievance on similar grounds in the present writ petition, which is not maintainable even on the principle of constructive res- judicata. On merits, it has been contended that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Superintendent-cum-Designer was originally ad-hoc appointment and was subsequently made substantive vide order dated 14.7.1987, against the vacancy of the year 1985-86. The issue with regard to his denial of promotion on the higher post is also not tenable in the eyes of law since he stood further promoted on the post of Assistant Director pursuant to the recommendations of the D.P.C. on scrutiny of A.C.Rs. and A.P.Rs. in accordance with rules and, therefore, he has no justification to raise any grievance before this Court. (7). As regards the petitioners contention that his confirmation on the post of Assistant Director was not done by the respondents, it has been contended that since the petitioner was not substantive appointee and he did not hold regular appointment on the lower post from which promotion had been made to the post of Assistant Director (Technical), the D.P.C. could not be convened for regularisation of his ad-hoc appointment as Assistant Director and without regularisation of his ad-hoc appointment on the said post, his confirmation on the same was not possible. The respondents have further disputed the claim of the petitioner that any person junior to the petitioner had been promoted on the higher post. (8). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position on the subject. (9). The respondents have further disputed the claim of the petitioner that any person junior to the petitioner had been promoted on the higher post. (8). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the legal position on the subject. (9). At the outset, it may be stated that the petitioner has agitated the issue with regard to his confirmation, fixation of seniority and promotion which already stands decided and concluded in terms of the earlier orders of this Court dated 3.9.1986 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1480/83, and as stated above, I am of the consi- dered view that all the aforesaid issues have already been decided by the respondents after perusing his entire service record and D.P.C. was duly convened when he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Technical) from the substantive post of Superintendent-cum-Designer and since the aforesaid questions pertaining to the petitioners grievance are raised in Writ Petition No. 1480/83, already stands decided, it was not open to the petitioner to again move this Court by way of the instant writ petition agitating the same issues which were raised in the earlier writ petition and stand decided by the respondents in terms of the order dated 3.9.1986 of this Court as referred to above. I am further of the considered opinion that the matters regarding promotion/absorption of the government servants, seniority, con- firmation and fixation of pay etc. are squarely covered under the heading `service matters as defined in Section 2(F) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunal) Act 1976, and the very object of the constitution of the Administrative Tribunals by virtue of the Act of 1976 was to ameliorate the grievances raised by the government servants with regard to any of aforesaid matters for which the pro- per forum to approach is the Service Appellate Tribunal duly constituted under the Act before agitating any grievance by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. I am further of the view that under the Act of 1976 the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal could always be invoked by an aggrieved govt. servant which is the proper forum and is competent to examine and decide all the issues falling within the definition of ``Service Matters as defined under the Act of 1976 as referred to above. I am further of the view that under the Act of 1976 the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal could always be invoked by an aggrieved govt. servant which is the proper forum and is competent to examine and decide all the issues falling within the definition of ``Service Matters as defined under the Act of 1976 as referred to above. The said Tribunal is further competent to examine the findings of the D.P.C. or the appointing authority as to whether violated any statutory rules or not and in doing so it is always open to that Tribunal to examine the complete record of the incumbent. Under these circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by way of writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and he is however, at liberty to pursue the alternative remedy of Appeal provided under the Act of 1976. (10). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in the matter of Narendra Chadha and others vs. Union of India and Others (1) and D.K. Mitra and others vs. Union of India and others (2). In the matter of Narendra Chadha (supra), the grievance which was urged by the petitioners in appeal before the Apex Court was issue pertaining to the seniority and promotion of direct recruits quo the promotees and the question regarding determination of their inter-se seniority. While ad-hoc or ex-gra- tia promotions has been made in large numbers from feeder posts continuously to fill several vacancies allocated for direct recruits while only few direct recruitments made in deliberate derogation of quota rule. Further the promotees continuing in ad-hoc position for 15 to 20 years without being reverted to their original posts and without their right to hold the promotion posts being questioned. Further the promotees continuing in ad-hoc position for 15 to 20 years without being reverted to their original posts and without their right to hold the promotion posts being questioned. In this case the Apex Court had directed the Union of India to treat all candidates who were stated to have been promoted on several posts in Grade IV in each of the two services contrary to the Rules till now as having been appointed to the said posts in the said cadre in accordance with the relevant rules of the Indian Economic Service, 1961 with a further direction that direct recruits shall be given seniority w.e.f. the date from which their names were recommended by the Commission for appointment to such grade or posts as provided under the Rules. A seniority list of all the promotees and direct recruits was directed to be prepared by treating the promotees as full members of the service w.e.f. the dates they were continuously officiating. (11). In the matter of D.K. Mitra & Others vs. Union of India & Others (supra) the promotees in the cadre of Divisional Medical Officers in the Ministry of Railway continued to remain stagnated on officiating basis while on the contrary the petitioners who were promoted as Divisional Medical Officers on officiating basis had continued as such for several years, the vacancies to which the petitioners were appointed it was directed by the Apex Court that for the purposes of determining the seniority amongst promotees the petitioner should be treated as having been appointed to permanent vacancy from the respective dates of their original appointment and entire period of officiating service performed by them should be taken into consideration as if that service was of the same character and was per- formed by substantive holders of permanent posts. (12). (12). In my view, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions is not attracted to the instant case for the reason that at the first instance there is no dispute in the instant writ petition as regards the promotees who are direct recruits and secondly the appointment of the petitioner earlier as Superintendent-cum-Designer was a sub- stantive appointment against the vacancy of the year 1985-86, in pursuance of the order dated 14.7.1987, and further by order dated 3.9.1986, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1480/83, all the questions pertaining to the petitioners confirmation on the post of Assistant Director. the issue pertaining to fixation of his seniority as well as the question of determining his eligibility for further promotion stood decided and also implemented subsequently by the respondents in pursuance of the recommendations of the D.P.C. which was convened on 10.7.1987, had given due relief to the petitioner by recommending his promotion as Assistant Director (Textile) in Industries Department after determining his relative seniority quo other candidates, after taking into con- sideration his A.C.Rs. as well as A.P.Rs. and other relevant service record, more particularly two other candidates Mr. B.L. Tang and Mr. S. Iqbal Ahmad against whom the petitioner has raised the grievance in the present writ petition, it is not open to the petitioner to raise dispute since his grievance already stand decided and the relief sought for has been duly granted to the petitioner in pursuant to the aforesaid recommendations of the D.P.C. (13). As regards the applicability of Rule 17(b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules 1951, I am of the view that the same are not applicable to the petitioner as the same are meant for the personnel who were sent abroad on deputation or personnel in foreign service and the petitioners case is neither that of deputation nor of his sent for foreign service and no benefit can be availed of by the petitioner under the said rules. (14). As regards rule 30A of the Rajasthan Industries Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, the relevant rule which is attracted to petitioners case is sub-rule (3) of Rule 25 which deals with the Revised Criteria, Eligibility and Procedure for Promotion to Junior, Senior and other posts encadred in the Service. (14). As regards rule 30A of the Rajasthan Industries Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, the relevant rule which is attracted to petitioners case is sub-rule (3) of Rule 25 which deals with the Revised Criteria, Eligibility and Procedure for Promotion to Junior, Senior and other posts encadred in the Service. Under sub-rule (1) it is incumbent upon the Appointing Authority to determine the number of vacancies for a particular post and thereafter decide the question regarding the number of posts to be filled up by promotion in accordance with sub-rule (9), prepare a correct and complete list of the senior most persons who are eligible and qualified for promotion on the basis of seniority cum-merit to the class of posts concerned. Sub-Rule (3) stipulates as under : ``No person shall be considered for first promotion in the Service unless he is substantively appointed and confirmed on the lowest post in the Service. After first promotion in the Service, for subsequent promotions to higher posts in the Service, a person shall be eligible if he has been appointed to such post from which promotion is to be made after selection in accordance with one of the methods of recruitment under any Service Rules promulgated under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. (15). Since the exercise regarding petitioners promotion on the post of Assistant Director (Technical) from the substantive post of Superintendent-cum-Designer had already been carried out by the respondents as per the criteria envisages under the rules and the petitioners eligibility quo other candidates eligible within the zone of consideration had been duly considered, it is not open to the petitioner to agitate the grievances which he has raised by way of instant writ petition and which also stand concluded by the earlier decision of this Court in C.W.P. No. 1480/83, decided on 3.9.1986. (16). As regards rule 27A of the Rajasthan Industries Service Rules 1960, I am of the view that they are not applicable to those employees who are working either temporarily or on officiating basis and who there after are recruited regularly by any of the methods of recruitment prescribed under the rules, whereas the petitioner was never regularised and continued to work on ad-hoc basis as Assistant Director (Textiles) and hence not entitled to avail the benefit of said rules. I am finally of the view that in compliance of the earlier order of this Court dated 3.9.1986, as referred to above, the petitioner had been promoted on the post of Superintendent-cum-Designer vide order dated 14.7.1987, and Assistant Director (Textile) vide order dated 27.7.1987, and thereafter the seniority was also assigned to him vide order dated 29.6.88, hence it is not open to the petitioner to agitate any of the grievance as referred to above. (17). In order to examine the veracity of the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner, I have summoned the relevant record of the D.P.C. for the period in dispute from the respondents and on perusal of the summoned record as well as after examining the legal position on the subject, I am of the considered view that the reliefs sought for, have already been granted to the petitioner and since the pe- titioner already stand retired from service of the respondents on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.3.1993, the writ petition does not survive any further consideration of this Court and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. It is directed that in case the petitioner has so far not been given benefits consequent upon his retirement from service, the respondents are directed to rele- ase the same within a period of four months from the date of submission of certified copy of the order fo this Court.