BHAIYALAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioners seeking absorption in Transport Department.

(2.) LEARNED Govt. Advocate for the State submits that petitioner No.3 was compulsorily retired as a major punishment and he is out of employment, yet petitioner No.3 has shown his occupation as 'service' in the cause title of the petition. In the entire petition, learned Govt. Advocate submits that petitioner No.3 nowhere disclosed that he is out of employment. The petitioner No.3 has also not disclosed whether he filed any petition earlier challenging the punishment order etc. Learned Govt. Advocate further submits that a person who is not on the rolls of the department, by no stretch of imagination, can seek absorption in the department.

(3.) IN my considered opinion, petitioner No.3 has not approached this Court with clean hands. In all fairness, he should have disclosed that he is not in the employment and there was no occasion for him to show his occupation as 'service'. Thus, there is a misrepresentation on the part of petitioner No.3. However, since he is out of employment and facing a major penalty, I only want to warn such litigant that he should approach the Court with clean hands, clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. Considering his financial position, I am not imposing any exemplary cost on him. However, such litigants should be careful while approaching the Court of law. Accordingly, the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted and this petition is treated only for petitioners No.1 and 2.