Judgment Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1 Heard finally, by consent of the parties. 2. The Petitioner belongs to Scheduled caste category, who was not party to Original Application No. 927 of 2012, has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) dated 30 September 2013 thereby, allowed the Original Application filed by Applicant-Respondent No.4, belonging to V.J. (A) category of backward classes and directed to promote as Secretary, Public Works Department of State of Maharashtra (Respondent No.1), by filing the present Petition on 11 November 2013. Apart from the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order, the prayer is also made to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order. The matter was adjourned from time to time. Ultimately, as the preliminary objection was raised on 15 January 2014, the matter is listed today for final disposal, as it could not be heard on 22 January 2014. There is no specific ad-interim order in favour of the Petitioner. 3. So far as the power of Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain and/or to consider the issue revolving around the Civil Services is not in dispute, but the aspect of exercising jurisdiction and entertaining such Petition by considering the statutory alternate remedy available under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, “the Tribunal Act), in the present facts and circumstances of the case, specially when the issues are pertaining to Seniority List, Roaster and the Government Circulars pertaining to the reservation for the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Class Category and Other Backward Classes and so also the provisions of the Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (VimuktaJatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Class Category and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2001, just cannot be overlooked. In our view this required the details of various disputed facts, which just cannot be gone into for the first time in the present Writ Petition, at the instance of the third party to the Original Application. 4. We decline to entertain the present Petition as the Petitioner has alternate remedy which, in our view, is efficacious and effective, such as Review Petition as contemplated under the Tribunal Act, as the Petitioner is “person aggrieved”/ “person affected” by the impugned order. 4. We decline to entertain the present Petition as the Petitioner has alternate remedy which, in our view, is efficacious and effective, such as Review Petition as contemplated under the Tribunal Act, as the Petitioner is “person aggrieved”/ “person affected” by the impugned order. The another remedy is also to invoke Section 19 of the Tribunal Act by filing a separate Original Application, if so advised. These remedies, in our view, need to be exhausted first by the Petitioner, which will be in the interest of all the parties concerned, apart from the opportunity to all the person concerned on various factual details, so that appropriate decision/order can be passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, for the above reasons, by keeping all points open, we are inclined to dispose of the present Petition as the Petitioner has alternate remedy, as referred above. 5. So far as the aspect of filing Original Application and/or Review Petition within limitation, for the above reasons and as the important issues are involved, we are granting liberty to the Petitioner to apply for condonation of delay, if any. The learned Tribunal to consider the same in accordance with law as that should not be the hurdle to decide and/or dispose of the above Review/Application filed by the Petitioner. 6. It is made clear that, as the matter was pending before this Court and as the concerned Respondent-Department could not take any decision to promote Respondent No.4 and as now, we are disposing of the present Petition, the Respondent-Department is at liberty to take action in accordance with law including giving promotion to Respondent No.4, as such important post cannot be kept vacant. However, it is made clear that any promotion and/or any action taken by the Respondent-Department shall be subject to the final decision of the Review and/or Original Application to be filed by the Petitioner, if any. Liberty is also granted to the Petitioner to apply for any appropriate reliefs. 7. In view of above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, with liberty. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. The parties to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order.