S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, a Deputy Mamlatdar in the Revenue Department is praying for the following reliefs : (A) To direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for the grant of higher grade scale w. e. f. 22. 12. 1995 by ignoring the adverse remarks in the confidential report of the petitioner for the period from 1. 4. 1992 to 31. 3. 1993 and to grant the same from 22. 12. 1995 if found fit with 12% interest. (B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the respondent may be directed to fix the salary of the petitioner and to pay the same as if he is granted the higher grade scale w. e. f. 22. 12. 1995, henceforth. ( 3 ) IN the prayer clause, the petitioner has not prayed for quashing and setting aside of the adverse remarks which were communicated to him in his coniidcnlial report for the period from 1. 4. 1992 to 31. 3. 1993. The petitioners only grievance is that his case for grant of higher grade scale to him with effect from 22. 12. 1995 be considered ignoring adverse remarks. ( 4 ) DURING the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that these adverse remarks could not have been served upon the petitioner or even if those have been served, the same coufd not have been taken for denying him the higher grade scale benefits with effect from 22. 12. 1995. ( 5 ) THE adverse remarks as such are of no value or substance nor it can be said to be adversely affecting any of the service conditions of the concerned employee. However, these adverse remarks may result in denial of some service benefits to the concerned employee. In view of this fact, independently of any adverse orders passed against the employee concerned relying on the adverse remarks the concerned employee has no righl to challenge the same before this Court. However, these adverse remarks may result in denial of some service benefits to the concerned employee. In view of this fact, independently of any adverse orders passed against the employee concerned relying on the adverse remarks the concerned employee has no righl to challenge the same before this Court. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits before this Court that denial of higher grade scale benefits is action of the respondents which can he challenged before the Gujarat Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, but as in this case, denial of higher grade scale benefits to the petitioner is as a result of adverse remarks communicated in his confidential report for the period 1. 4. 1992 to 31. 3. 1993, he cannot challenge the same before the Tribunal and only remedy available to the petitioner is of filing of this writ petition before this Court. ( 7 ) I fail to see any merits in this contention to justify circumventing of the remedy of appeal available in this matter. The petitioners grievance is that for the reasons as stated in the special civil application those adverse remarks could not have been taken into consideration or those are to be ignored. So it is one of the grounds taken by the petitioner to challenge the action of the respondents not to grant him the benefit of higher grade scale. This point can be raised before the Tribunal. Otherwise also, in case where the petitioner is challenging the order passed prejudicial to him relying on the adverse remarks it is always open to the Tribunal while considering the validity of that order to go into the validity of the adverse remarks. That is the course to be adopted. Otherwise, for challenging the order which is passed on the adverse remarks, in all the cases, the remedy of appeal will become redundant and all the cases will come up before this Court. That cannot be the intention of the legislature. In such matters, and more so when the validity of the adverse remarks has to be gone into, where relying on them some order prejudicial to the concerned employee has been passed, the tribunal has all the power, authority and jurisdiction to examine and adjudicate upon the correctness and legality of the adverse remarks. In such matters, and more so when the validity of the adverse remarks has to be gone into, where relying on them some order prejudicial to the concerned employee has been passed, the tribunal has all the power, authority and jurisdiction to examine and adjudicate upon the correctness and legality of the adverse remarks. As in this case the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy available in the matter, this writ petition deserve to be dismissed only on this ground. ( 8 ) LASTLY, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this matter has already been admitted and as such, the petitioner may not be relegated to remedy of appeal. It is true that the matter is admitted, but merely on this ground, it is not correct to contend that the petitioner may not be relegated to remedy of appeal. This admission has been made exparte and it is recent in point of time. In appropriate cases where the matters come up for hearing after admission before the Courts after many years, though alternate efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners therein, still the Court may not dismiss the same only on this ground, but this is not an exceptional case. As stated earlier, this writ petition was admitted only on 26th March, 1999 and that too, it was an exparte admission. It is always open to the respondents, after service of the notice of Rule or notice of admission to raise objection regarding maintainability of writ petition. ( 9 ) IN the result, this Special Civil Application is dismissed only on the ground that the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy available in the matter. Rule discharged. .