S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE petitioners, by this Special Civil Application, prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 30. 6. 1999 posting him at Bombay Central Division. It has further been prayed that the respondent may be directed to post the petitioners in Rajkot Division. This order has been passed on 13. 6. 1999. The petitioners have filed this petition on 2. 8. 1999 i. e. after more than one month of passing of the impugned order. ( 3 ) THE petitioners are Constables in the Railway Protection Force. It is, being services of Railway Protection Force, much more discipline is expected from the petitioners. The petitioners were dismissed from services on 13109. 1998 and that, order was came to be challenged before this Court. The petition was allowed on 4. 5. 1999 and the respondents were directed to reinstate back the petitioners in tile service and accordingly it has been done. But they have not complied with the posting order. When the petitioners were posted at Bombay though they may have some difficulty or inconvenience against their this posting but their action not to comply with that order is not befitting to the members of such a discipline force. Once the order of the posting is made it has to be complied with unless it is stayed by the higher officers or by the Court, which is not the case here. The extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court is available to those litigants, who have come up with clean hands before this Court and they have good conduct. The petitioners, being Railway Protection Force employees, they have to be discipline and orders passed by their superior officers are to be complied with. They cannot take the matter as if they are the persons to decide. If they have any difficulty or inconvenience to take their family to Bombay, it is a matter for consideration of the superior officer, on their representation. By not complying with that order, the petitioners expose themselves to disciplinary action. They were earlier dismissed from the services on misconduct. Though this Court has allowed that petition and they have been reinstated but, the order of their posting at Bombay has not been carried out. By not complying with that order, the petitioners expose themselves to disciplinary action. They were earlier dismissed from the services on misconduct. Though this Court has allowed that petition and they have been reinstated but, the order of their posting at Bombay has not been carried out. Only on this misconduct of the petitioners, the Special Civil Application deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. .