1 S.B. Civil writ petition No. 11347/2009 Dr. Pradeep Jain vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order dated 11.12.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.RK Sudeu, for the petitioner. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The facts of the case are like that petitioner is a doctor as he passed his MBBS Course in the year 2007 and joined as Assistant Manager in one Cooperative Bank at Sawimadhopur and during this service period, he got opportunity to apply for the post of Rural Health Officer and he got the appointment on fixed remuneration of Rs.7950/- per month. However, according to the petitioner it was in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500. According to the petitioner since there was a provision of giving three months notice prior to relinquish the job of the Asstt. Manager of the Cooperative Bank, therefore, he sought extension of time for joining the duties and ultimately he submitted his joining report on 24th March, 2009. However, from 24th March, 2009 admittedly he did not perform his duties on the post as according to the petitioner himself he was not allowed to perform the duties. The petitioner then got admission for Post Graduation Course in MD Medicine and applied for the study leave. The respondents by order dated 8th Sept., 2009 after taking note of the fact that 2 petitioner after getting the appointment order, merely gave a paper of joining and did not report on duty any time and, therefore, he has not completed his probation period also and, therefore, exercising the power under Rule 41 of the Rules of 2008 his services have been terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Jai Shanker Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1966 SC 492 wherein it has been held that for remaining person for overstay on leave a pre-inquiry is necessary. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ jurisdiction is equitable jurisdiction where the conduct of the parties are very relevant and in certain circumstances it is not necessary for court to even entertain the writ petition even if there is some illegality. The facts referred above clearly reveal that petitioner merely gave his joining report and did not attend the duties for a single day and this fact is admitted case of the petitioner as per the facts stated by the petitioner himself. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not allowed to join the duties is falsified by the petitioner's own case that he was allowed to join the duties on 24th March, 2009. There is no factual foundation how one can be denied to perform his duties after allowing him to join on the post. The allegations that he was not allowed to perform the duties are absolutely vague and bald 3 allegations which can be levelled by anyone. Looking to this conduct of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke this equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to have only monitory benefits from Government without discharging the duties. In view of the above conduct of the petitioner, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. [PRAKASH TATIA], J. cpgoyal/-