JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking relief to pay his salary upto date right from Sept. 1982, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the amount so determined which is payable to him but has not been paid. The aforesaid relief is sought by the petitioner on the ground, inter alia, that neither order of transfer has been served upon him, transferring him from Umedabad to Sathu by the District Education Officer nor he was relieved properly. It is also averred by the petitioner that to undo the statement which was so created, he made an application seeking his voluntary retirement under Rule 144(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 but no order accepting his voluntary retirement has been passed as yet. 2. After service of notices on respondents No. 1 to 6, they have filed a joint reply denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is also revealed from paragraph 6 of the reply that the petitioner was not transferred only from Umedabad to Sathu but by order dated 6-10-1983 he was transferred form Sathu to Bali. The said order was served upon the petitioner personally and on his refusal, it was sent to him. The service of the petitioner has been placed at the disposal of the District Education Officer, Pali by order dated 6-10-1983. Even then, the petitioner instead of either approaching the District Education Officer, Pali or the Government Secondary School, Bali, approached the District Education Officer, Jalore whereupon he was informed by letter dated 12-4-1985, Annx. 7 to the writ petition, that he has been transferred from district Jalore to district Pali, and therefore, he may approach the proper authority in this connection. The petitioner, however, continued to insist to join at the Government Secondary School at Umedabad where he was not allowed to do so. 3. It is also averred in paragraph 7 of the reply that the petitioner has sent his resignation letter dated 20th Sept. 1986 (Annx. 9 to the writ petition) which became effective after expiry of 3 months' period. According to the respondents, the resignation letter sent by the petitioner does not require formal acceptance. 4. After receipt of a copy of the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 6. the petitioner filed a rejoinder, denying the averments made in the reply. 5. According to the respondents, the resignation letter sent by the petitioner does not require formal acceptance. 4. After receipt of a copy of the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 6. the petitioner filed a rejoinder, denying the averments made in the reply. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the averments made in the writ petition, reply and the rejoinder filed in the present case. 6. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has raised several intricate disputed questions of facts in the present case which are beyond the scope of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Such intricate disputed questions of facts cannot be effectively gone into under Art. 226 of the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the intricate disputed questions of facts raised by the petitioner can be effectively gone into in a regular civil suit. 7. It is true that a regular civil suit is not an alternative remedy but the nature of intricate disputed questions of facts raised by the petitioner in his writ petition and denied by the respondents in their reply cannot be satisfactorily decided on the basis of affidavits alone. It requires threadbare trial in a regular civil suit by examining the parties and ascertaining the veracity of their statements on oath by cross-examination which is not possible in writ jurisdiction. The documents which are on record are required to be proved in accordance with law and deserve rebuttal by the rival party against whom it is intended to be relied upon. 8. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner considers himself to be aggrieved from his transfer order or non-acceptance of his resignation letter then, if so advised, he would be at liberty to file a regular civil suit in accordance with law.With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed.Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. *******