STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. SHAILESH AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel on both sides. We are afraid, this Special Leave Petition deserves to be dismissed for lack of candour and an attempt to mislead the court on the pan of the petitioner. The question is whether ad hoc service is includible in the period of qualifying service for eligibility for the promotion. At p. 50 of the paper-book, while translating the relevant Executive Instructions dated 14/11/1984 (as amended on 1/9/1986 the special leave petition proceeds to translate the relevant provisions from Hindi to English so as to include even ad hoc service. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have endeavoured to point out that this is a deliberate suppression and an attempt to mislead the court. No rejoinder on the point is forthcoming.

(2.) It is now admitted that the word ad hoc used in the translation is inapposite and the appropriate translation of the Hindi word 'asthai' would be 'temporary'. It is also not disputed that while what is indicated in the Executive Order is 'asthai', the meaning that is sought to be imparted to it is the equivalent of 'tadarth' which is the Hindi equivalent of ad hoc. The difference between the two is significant. There was. we are afraid, an attempt to mislead the court and the petitioner has rendered itself disentitled to discretionary relief. We dismiss this special leave petition for lack of candour on the part of the petitioner.

(3.) List it next week.