ORDER 1. Learned Additional Advocate General strongly objects to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an alternative efficacious remedy being available of filing of an appeal against seniority list and promotion orders before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, he has referred to the Act of 1976 to point out that it would be most efficacious to let the matter be placed before the Tribunal which would be in a position to do the fact finding enquiry with regard to the seniority as well as with regard to the promotion recommendation. 2. Faced with such a situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is an outcome of the earlier litigation which has been initiated before this court in 2013 and the matter should be taken up by the High Court itself. If at all the matter is to be relegated to the Tribunal, learned counsel prays for directions to request the Tribunal to decide the case expeditiously within a period of six months. He also submits that the Tribunal may be directed to allow filing of joint appeal in order to save time and paper of the court. 3. I have considered the submissions. 4. Looking into the nature of the case and as pointed out by Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG, I am in an agreement that the matter can be at best adjudicated on facts by the Tribunal which is the first court under the Act of 1976 to decide the service matters. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is held to be not maintainable at this stage on the ground of alternative efficacious remedy being available. The pending writ petition would have no implication on the present petition and it is informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that they have raised an objection in the said case also with regard to alternative remedy. 6. As regards filing of the joint appeal, I am in an agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the cases where several employees are aggrieved of the common order passed by the respondents relating to the service matter, the facts of everyone being similar, it would always be in the interest of dispensation of justice that the joint appeal may be allowed by the Tribunal more so as the deficit court fee is not required to be filed before the Tribunal. It would always reduce the total working of the Tribunal as well as to save time and paper. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that if a joint appeal is preferred, the same may be entertained, if appellants are able to show to the Tribunal that there is a common cause of action and all of them are commonly aggrieved of the same order having similar impact on all of them. 8. If such an appeal is preferred, taking into consideration that the pleadings can be completed expeditiously, the Tribunal is expected to decide the case expeditiously preferably within a period of 8 to 10 months. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.