ORDER : 1. On 29.09.2022, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in wake of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents has passed the following order: “A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of respondents in the present matter that the petitioner had already approached the Tribunal vide an appeal filed on 05.08.2022. The said appeal was withdrawn by the petitioner by filing an application on 10.08.2022. The present writ petition has been filed on 06.08.2022 and the fact of an appeal already having been filed before the Tribunal was concealed by the petitioner in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the State as well as private respondent submitted that even while withdrawing the appeal before the Tribunal, the fact of a writ petition having been filed before this Court was not stated and it was withdrawn only on the ground of the family circumstances of the petitioner. The said application preferred before the Tribunal was signed not only by counsel for the petitioner but also by the petitioner himself. Therefore, it has been prayed on behalf of the respondents that the present writ petition be dismissed on the ground of concealment of the said facts only. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments: 1.Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India ; (2007) 8SCC 449, decided on 20.08.2007. 2.Green Belt Society Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.620/2017, decided on 14.02.2017. 3.Mohd. Sajid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.11612/2022, decided on 26.08.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture prayed for time to complete his instructions. Time prayed for is granted. List the matter on 12.10.2022.” 2. It is to be noted that when above proceedings were drawn, learned counsel Ms. Shweta Bora led by learned senior counsel Mr. Ravi Bhansali appeared for the petitioner. 3. Today, learned counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh appeared and submitted that the order impugned passed by the respondent is per se contrary to the Rule 8(iii) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Transferred Activities) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2011’) and that his writ petition be decided in light of the Judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Kiran Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14964/2019), decided on 15.01.2020. 4. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14964/2019), decided on 15.01.2020. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Court was about to dismiss the petition, then Mr. Bhansali, learned senior counsel had sought an adjournment to complete his instructions and hence, the petition cannot be heard on merit. 5. According to this Court, when the learned senior counsel appeared for the petitioner on 29.09.2022 and sought time to complete his instructions, the time was allowed with a view to enable the counsel to decide as to whether the petitioner would pursue the writ petition or would withdraw the same. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner now, insisted upon deciding the case on merit, in light of the judgment passed in the case of Kiran Kumari (supra). 7. The facts as noticed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 29.09.2022 clearly shows that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Tribunal on 05.08.2022 and the present writ petition on 06.08.2022. While doing the same, neither the petitioner has disclosed to this Court the factum of appeal having been filed in the Tribunal nor has he moved any application before the Tribunal for withdrawal of the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of admission, the fact was disclosed before the Court that he has already preferred an appeal and an application for withdrawal of the same would soon be filed. 9. In the opinion of this Court, such assertion made by learned counsel/petitioner appears to be false inasmuch as on 16.08.2022, neither learned counsel Mr. Sunil Kumar singh was present in the Court nor was the petitioner. It is to be noted that on such date Ms. Shweta Bora appeared and only such counsel can make the statement about the factum of having filed the appeal before the Tribunal being disclosed. 10. This Court is of the view that the petitioner having failed to disclose pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal has concealed a material fact from this Court. 11. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. 12. Stay application also stands disposed of.