SAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One, who approaches a Court of law with tainted hands for grant of equitable relief in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, has no right to be heard, is the settled legal proposition and the petitioner, who belongs to the teaching profession has greater duty to abide by the truth and exhibit exemplary conduct to be followed by the future generation of the country, has no right whatsoever to be heard on the merits of the case. This conclusion of ours is founded on the fact that the petitioner is per se guilty of concealment of material facts and also of making a patently wrong statement in the Court.

(2.) The present one is the third round of litigation by the petitioner. He joined service of the respondent-College some time in January, 1991 on the basis of appointment letter Annexure P-1 as Lecturer in mathematics on ad hoc basis. Feeling threatened with discontinuation of service, he filed C.W.P. No. 3950 of 1991 and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of that writ petition vide order dated 8.5.1991 protecting the right of the petitioner to continue in service till the availability of a regularly selected candidate. However, at the same time the Court gave liberty to the College to make regular selection and observed that the petitioner will have a right to be considered at the time of such selection. When the College had issued the advertisement dated 18.9.1993 for regular selection, the petitioner instituted C.W.P. No. 13288 of 1993 and prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to regularise him in service. He also prayed that non-inclusion of a nominee of the Maharishi Dayanand University in the Selection Committee is illegal and has the effect of vitiating the slection to be made. After hearing the petitioner, this Court dismissed C.W.P. No. 13288 of 1993 by its order dated 22.10.1993. While dismissing that writ petition, the Court took notice of the order dated 8.5.1991 and also the grievance of the petitioner that the advertisement issued on 18.9.1993 was unlawful and held that the petitioner cannot be heard to challenge the advertisement merely because he may have become overage for the post. Undeterred by the unequivocal observation made by the Court about his ineligiblity, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 30.10.1993 and prayed that the recommendation made by the Selection Committee on 22.10.1993 culminating in the appointment of respondent No. 5 be declared illegal and be quashed, and a direction be issued to the respondents to reconvene the meeting of the Selection Committee in accordance with the provisions of law with a further direction to them to consider his candidature for regular appointment as Lecturer in Mathematics.

(3.) In paras 10 and 14 of the writ petition, it has been alleged by the petitioner that no interview letters were issued to the candidates who had applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 18.9.1993 and he too was not called for interview. However, on having acquired knowledge about the meeting of the Selection Committee, he went to the College and met the President and other members of the Committee and requested them not to hold the interviews but his protest was ignored and he was allowed to go away after marking his presence only.