JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated May 26, 1994 passed by the Assistant Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Sub Division Negadia, whereby the petitioner was transferred. The petitioner also makes prayer seeking issuance of direction in the name of respondents to regularise the petitioner on the post of LDC and to make payment of the wages of the said post from January 1980 with all consequential benefits. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on January 27. 1980 he came to be appointed by the respondents on the post of Helper. Since the petitioner was literate person having Higher Secondary School Certificate the respondents started taking work of the post of L.D.C. On March 31, 1982 the Assistant Engineer, Deoli issued an office order directing the petitioner that in addition to his own duties he will also extend his duties as Cashier cum Clerk. This was done with a view to improve the working of the establishment. In pursuance of this order temporary identity card was also issued to him as he was required to deal with cash in Rank. Again on January 27, 1983 the petitioner was required to prepare and deal with T.A. Bills, Medical Bills etc. with one Devkishan Sharma, who was nominated to perform the duties of Cashier. In this way the petitioner was assigned the duties of Clerk, which he discharged efficiently, diligently and satisfactorily. The Assistant Engineer issued certificates from time depicting satisfactory working of the petitioner. Six of such certificates have been annexed with the writ petition. On Jan. 13, 1992 the Assistant Engineer issued another order whereby Shankar Lal Meena working as Clerk in Establishment Section was required to give charge to the petitioner and in pursuance of the said order the charge of establishment section was handed over to the petitioner. Though the petitioner was discharging the duties of the post of Clerk right from the year 1980 but the pay of the said post was not given to him. On April 30, 1984 an application was submitted by the petitioner requesting that he may be paid the wages of the post of clerk as he was discharging the duties of the said post continuously and he may also be regularised on the said post. Copy of the application has also been annexed with the writ petition. On April 30, 1984 an application was submitted by the petitioner requesting that he may be paid the wages of the post of clerk as he was discharging the duties of the said post continuously and he may also be regularised on the said post. Copy of the application has also been annexed with the writ petition. Thereafter on May 26, 1994 an order was issued by the Assistant Engineer whereby the petitioner was ordered to be transferred. Copy of the said order was not handed over to the petitioner nor he was relieved from the said post. The petitioner in para 8 of the writ petition has incorporated the order dated May 26, 1994. 3. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition with the averments that the petitioner cannot be regularised on the post of L.D.C. as he is not eligible for the said post. The petitioner was given appointment as Helper on daily wages basis w.e.f. January 27, 1980 and thereafter on completion of two years service he was declared semi permanent in accordance with Rule 3(3) of the Work Charged Service Rules vide order dated May 4, 1984. The pay fixations of the petitioner were carried out accordingly. Pursuant to the order dated May 4, 1984 the petitioner has already received the benefits and he did not raise any protest against the order dated May 4, 1984 or agitated the matter before the appropriate forum but in fact continued to discharge the duties of helper and received the benefits accordingly. Copy of the order dated May 4, 1984 has been produced by the respondents as Annexure R/1. It is also contended that the petitioner cannot be appointed as L.D.C. as he is not selected by the R.P.S.C. The petitioner is guilty of concealment/suppressing the material facts and the petitidn deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The respondents have also annexed the copy of the order dated August 26, 1994 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deoli District Tonk as well as the copy of the plaint dated June 6, 1994, instituted by the petitioner before the said court against the respondents seeking quashing of the order dated May 26, 1994. The respondents contention is that the writ petition is not maintainable as two parallel proceedings can not run together in the matter of same cause of action. The respondents contention is that the writ petition is not maintainable as two parallel proceedings can not run together in the matter of same cause of action. It is also contended that the writ petition involves disputed question of facts, which cannot be adjudicated without adducing evidence and the proper course is to agitate the matter is to raise an industrial dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Mr. Bhanwar Bagri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued and in support of his contention placed reliance on Pankaj Kumar v. University of Allahabad and another, 1993 Lab. I.C. 701 and Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Judge Industrial Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, 1998(3) Western Law Cases 556 . Whereas, Shri R.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on Daulat Ram. v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1998 (5) SLR 565 and Magha Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1987 (2) RLR page 610 . 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the material on record as well as the case law cited before me. 6. A look at the copy of the plaint Annexure R/2 demonstrates that the petitioner instituted the civil suit on June 6, 1994 before the Court of Munsif Deoli against the State of Rajasthan, Executive Engineer, PHED, Ajmer and Assistant Engineer PHED Deoli, seeking permanent injunction restraining the aforesaid respondents from transferring him from office of PHED Sub Division Negadia and further declared the order dated May 26, 1994 as illegal. An application seeking temporary injunction was also filed along with the civil suit. The learned Munsif decided the said application vide order dated August 26, 1994 after discussing the contents of the order dated May 26, 1994 and the arguments advanced by the rival sides. The application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated August 26, 1994 (Annexure R13).' The petitioner instituted this writ petition on June 20, 1994, whereas the so application for temporary injunction was dismissed on August 26, 1994. It implies that the civil suit was pending on the date of institution of the instant writ petition. 7. The application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated August 26, 1994 (Annexure R13).' The petitioner instituted this writ petition on June 20, 1994, whereas the so application for temporary injunction was dismissed on August 26, 1994. It implies that the civil suit was pending on the date of institution of the instant writ petition. 7. In Jai Singh v. Union of India and others, AIR 1977 SC 898 , the question of parallel remedy in respect of same subject matter jurisdiction came for consideration before the Supreme Court and their Lordships held that two parallel remedies in respect of the same subject at the same time cannot be allowed. Placing reliance on Jai Singh v. U.O.I. and others (supra), the Division Bench of this Court in Magha Ram v. State of Rajasthan (supra) took similar view. 8. Though the petitioner in the instant writ petition sought the relief of regularisation and payment of the wages of the post of Lower Division Clerk lo but the main relief of the petitioner is in respect of setting aside the order dated May 26, 1994, which he sought in the civil suit. The petitioner has not filed rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition. Even the petitioner has not mentioned the fact of institution of civil suit in the writ petition and deliberately concealed it. It is well settled that in order to seek relief under the extra ordinary jurisdiction as provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India one must come with clean hands. But as indicated hereinabove, the petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material facts. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Under these circumstances. it is not necessary for me to discuss other arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******