JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner in this case was appointed as a Senior Teacher in Social Studies by the order of the Addl Director of Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner dated July 27, 1959 after he was selected for the aforesaid post by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and he was posed as Senior Teacher at the Higher Secondary School, Mandal, District Bhilwara. The petitioner joined his port of Senior Teacher on July 29, 1959, Subsequently, the post if Senior Teacher in Social Studies, on which the petitioner was appointed, was abolished and he post held by the petitioner was redesignated at that of Senior Teacher in Civics. On September 9, 1967 it appears that some dispute arose between the petitioner and the Head Master of the Higher Secondary School Mandal where the petitioner was working on the question of going for a hike along with the students of that school. September 10, 1967 it was a holiday and thereafter the petitioner applied her casual leave for Sep. 11 and 12, 1967. The petitioner's case is that he fell ill and could not attend his duties on medical grounds subsequent to September 10, 1967. It is however admitted by both the parties that from September 11, 1967 to October 27, 1967 the petitioner was absent from duty and it is also admitted that the petitioner sent applications by post for extension of his leave on the ground of illness. The respondents' case is that the petitioner was informed that he should get himself medically examined by the District Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara under Rule 76 (b) of the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as `the rules') but he did not appear before the District Medical Officer, Bhilwara for medical examination as directed by the Head Master of the School. 2. On October 28, 1967 the petitioner reported for duty and submitted sickness certificates and health certificate signed by the Vaidya Incharge of the Government Aurvedic Dispensary, Roopaheli Kalan, District Bhilwara. The Head Master was agreeable in the beginning to allow the petitioner to joint his duty but he directed that the petitioner should produce medical certificates and fitness certificate signed by the District Medical & Health Officer, Bhilwara. The Head Master was agreeable in the beginning to allow the petitioner to joint his duty but he directed that the petitioner should produce medical certificates and fitness certificate signed by the District Medical & Health Officer, Bhilwara. The petitioner insisted that the Head Master should give him an order in writing, on which the Head Master directed the petitioner to produce the medical certificates and the fitness certificate, as mentioned above, and stated that there was no provision for taking the petitioner on duty before the requisite certificate under Rule 83 of the Rules were produced. From the representation of the petitioner reproduced at page 10 of the writ petition and Ex. R 12 dated November 6, 1967 it appears that in the first instance the Head Master was agreeable to allow the petitioner to join his duty subject to the final decision on the question about leave during the period of his absence from September 11, 1967 to October 27, 1967 later on. But on the insistence of the petitioner for an order in writing, the Head Master gave the petitioner the order Exhibit 2 directing him to produce the requisite medical and health certificates obtained from the District Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara. Thus, although the petitioners case is that the Head Master refused to take him on duty on 29-10-1967, yet the case of the respondents is that the Head Master was willing to allow the petitioner to join his duty, but the petitioner did not join on account of his insistence for a decision of the question of his leave for the period of his absence from duty. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner did not join his duty on October 28, 1967 or at any time thereafter and he submitted representation to higher authorities in the Education Department complaining that the Head Master illegally refused to allow the petitioner to join his duties. 3. According to the petitioner, the certificate of the Vaidya Incharge of the Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Roopeheli Kalan was sufficient and that the petitioner had thereby substantially complied with the provisions of Rule 83 of the rules. 3. According to the petitioner, the certificate of the Vaidya Incharge of the Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Roopeheli Kalan was sufficient and that the petitioner had thereby substantially complied with the provisions of Rule 83 of the rules. On the other hand, the respondent, view is that the petitioner wilfully disobeyed the order issued by Head Master, to submit the medical certificates about his illness obtained from the District Medical and Health Officer, as envisaged in clause by of Rule 76 of the rules and also a fitness certificate from the very same officer under Rule 83 of the Rules. While this dispute went on, the petitioner filed this writ petition in this Court on 22-9-1972. A show cause notice was issused by the Court & probably to end the controversy, the Director of Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner by his order dated December 5, 1972 (Ex R.18) posted the petitioner as Senior Teacher in Civics at the Government Higher Secondary School at Bihirani, District Alwar. It is not in dispute that even after the aforesaid order dated December 5, 1972 was passed & was delivered to the petitioner, he did not join his post of Senior Teacher even at the new place of posting and the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for he alleged misconduct of negligence, wilful absence from duty & non-compliance of the posting order etc. Although a charge sheet has been served upon the petitioner in that respect but it is not in dispute between parties that the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings have not been finally disposed of as yet & the same are still pending. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that so far as the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been taken back on duty is concerned, the same is no longer of an' consequence as by the order dated December 5, 1972 the Director of Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan intimated to the petitioner that he should join his duties as Senior Teacher in Civics at Bibirani School. On the basis of the unconditional order issued by the Director of Primary & Secondary Education on December 5, 1972 the petitioner could have joined his duties at the new place of his posting and that the default thereafter entirely lay with the petitioner inasmuch as he did not join his duty even after the order dated December 5, 1972 was communicated to him. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission to the period from-October 22, 1967 to December 5, 1972 and urged that the petitioner was prepared to join his duties on October 28, 1967 having submitted the medical certificates and the Fitness Certificate in accordance with the roles but as the Head Master did not allow the petitioners to join his duty on the aforesaid date, the petitioner is entitled to full salary for the period from October 28, 1967 to December 5, 1972 and also to all consequential benefits in respect thereof. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in the lust place the Head Master was willing to allow the petitioner to join his duty on October 28, 1967 as admitted by petitioner in his representation reproduced at page 10 of the writ petition. In the second place, according to the learned Additional Government Advocate, the Head Master was justified in insisting upon the production of medical certificates from the District Medical and Health Officer, Bhilwara under sub-rule (b) of Rule 76 of the rules. He could also likewise insist on the production of a health or fitness certificate from the same officer, prior to permitting the petitioner to join his duty. It was also submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioner is not entitled to payment of any salary for the reason the writ petition is grossly belated, having been filed after a lapse of almost five years firm October 28, 1967 when the cause of action accrued to the petitioner and further the petitioner was doing his own business in partnership with other person he is not entitled to and relief in this writ petition, in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and looking to the conduct of the petitioner in doing his own independent business in partnership during the period of his employment with the State Government. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and looking to the conduct of the petitioner in doing his own independent business in partnership during the period of his employment with the State Government. I do not think it is necessary for this Court determine the dispute in this writ petition, as to who was at fault for the petitioner not joining his duty on October 28, 1967 and as to whether the petitioner did not join his duty on the aforesaid date by himself or the Head Master illegal did not permit him to rejoin his duty on that day or whether the Head Master was justified in refusing to allow the petitioner to join his duty with it the production of the requisite medical and health certificates from the District Medical & Health Officer. Bhilwara, I would therefore, refrain from making the aforesaid questions and would dispose of the writ petition on the preliminary point, based upon the conduct of the petitioner. 6. It may be pointed out here that the petitioner cannot be granted relief in respect of salary or emolument in these proceedings for a period of more than three years before the filing of the writ petition. The reason is simple, because even if a petitioner world have filed a suit in a civil court on the date when the writ petition was filed by him in this Court and even if he would have succeeded in that suit on merits, then the Civil Court could have granted him a decree only in respect of his salary or emoluments for a period of three years prior to the date of the institution of such suit. This Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction, world be reluctant in granting the petitioner a relief which he could not have been able to obtain even be pursuing the ordinary remedy snit in the civil court. The only explanation, which has been offered by the petitioner for filing the writ petition almost after five years of the accrual of the cause of action to him is that he was making representations to the concerned authorities. The only explanation, which has been offered by the petitioner for filing the writ petition almost after five years of the accrual of the cause of action to him is that he was making representations to the concerned authorities. If the petitioner allowed the time to run away and did not approach this Court within a reasonable time after the Head Master, according to the version of the petitioner, refused to allow him to join his duty on October 28, 1967, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner and grant him a relief in his writ petition beyond a period of three years prior to the date for institution of this writ petition. Thus even if the petitioner would have succeeded on merits before this Court, then this Court could have allowed him salary or emoluments for the period of three years prior to September 22, 1972 when the writ petition was instituted and not for any period earlier thereto. 7. But there is another aspect which is required to be considered in this case. The respondents in their reply have asserted that the petitioner has been doing during this period, his private business in partnership with some other persons, under the name and style of M/s. Mewar Fertilisers and he was also a partner in the joint family trading business, which was run under the name and the style of M/s Banshilal Harishchander and Company. So far as the partnership firm M/s. Banshilal Harishchander & Co, although the name the petitioner has denied the allegation in his rejoinder and the document Ex R 20 produced by the respondents does not also support the contention that the petitioner was a partner in the aforesaid firm M/s. Banshilal Harishchander and Co., although the name of the petitioner appears in the name of the said Company. But as far as the partnership of the petitioner in the firm Mewar Fertilisers, Sabhash Nagar, Bhilwara is concerned, the document Ex R 20 produced by the respondents conclusively proves that there were four partners in the aforesaid firm, including the petitioner and his three brothers: Gulabchand, Shankerlal and Laxminarayan and it also appears that the said firm came into existence in April 1969 and continues to exist thereafter. In his rejoinder the petitioner did not have the courage to deny than he was not a partner of M/s. Mewar Fertilisers, but he his merely contented himself by saying no in part 17 of the rejoinder that M/s. Mewar Fertilisers was established in 1969 only and the petitioner did not derive any benefit out of the same, nor he was working in any capacity in the said firm. He has, however, admitted that the petitioner's name was included amongst the partners of the said firm "as member of the Hindu undivided family". The document Ex R 20 does not show that M/s. Mewar Fertilisers is a Hindu undivided family firm, but it appears that the said firm is a partnership firm consisting of four partners of which the petitiones is one. Thus from the averments of the parties and the document Ex R 20 produced by the respondents it appears that. The petitioner has been doing his private business as a partner of M/s. Mewar Fertilisers since April 1969 and that the said partnership continues even now. 8. In these circumstances, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of salary or emoluments for the period of three years from September 23, 1969 to September 22, 1972 or thereafter upto December 5, 1972 because the petitioner was engaged during the aforesaid period in doing his own private business and the equitable jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked by the petitioner in these circumstances for the relief sought by him. So far as the period after December 5, 1972 is concerned the petitioner has no subsisting grievance as he did not join his duty even at his new place of posting, inspite of the order dated December 5, 1972 passed by the Director of Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.Writ dismissed. *******