NARBADA PRASAD MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. In writ petition No. 22426 of 1996, the petitioner had chal lenged the order dated 2nd July, 1991 reverting the petitioner to the post of Lekhpal from the post of Naib Tehsildar and had obtained an ad interim order of stay of operation of the said order until an appropriate order of rerversion of the petitioner is passed by a competent authority for valid reasons.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991, he had claimed that he was holding a substantive post of Patwari since absorbed in the cadre of Lekhpal. On such basis, he had claimed that he is eligible to retire on attainment of 60 years. Such statement is made in paragraphs 8 and 10 respectively of the Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991, whereas, in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991, in paragraph 5, he claimed that he was promoted as Naib-Tehsildar and, therefore, cannot be reverted back. Thus, it appears that he is trying to make out two inconsistent cases in the two different writ petitions as mentioned above.

(3.) IN Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991, the petitioner had pointed out in para graph 10 that he was working as Naib-Teh sildar in officiating capacity. This fact has not been disclosed in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991. Thus, he has obtained an interim order in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991 by suppression of material facts as well as by making incorrect and misleading statement, which he had reason to believe to be incorrect and had sought to use the same in Court affirming the same as cor rect through affidavit.