K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) IN Anne Besent Junior High School, Krishnashram, 3 Nox Road Allahabad, four Assistant Teachers were to be appointed. There is a contest between the petitioner Smt. Meera Singh and Opposite party no. 3 Smt. Prabha Dwivedi. Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of teachers) Rules 1978 provides procedure for selection of a teacher. Sub-rule (1) of the aforesaid rule 10 reads thus : "(1). The selection committee shall, after interviewing such candidates as appear before it on a date to be fixed by it in this behalf, of which due intimation shall be given to all the candidates, prepare a list, containing as far as possible the names, in order of preference of three candidates found to be suitable for appointment. (2) ............... (3) ............... (4) ............... (5) (i) If the District Basic Education Officer is satisfied that (a) the candidates recommended by the selection committee possess the minimum qualification prescribed for the post; (b) the procedure laid down in these rules for the selection of Headmaster or assistant teacher as the case may be has been followed, he shall accord approval to the recommendations made by the selection committee and shall communicate his decision to the management within two weeks from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4). (ii) If the District Basic Education Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the management with the direction that the matter shall be reconsidered by the selection committee. (iii) If the District Basic Education Officer does not communicate his decision within one month from the date of receipt of the papers under clause (4) shall be deemed to have accorded approval to the recommendations made by the Selection Committee." It would be proper to quote rule 11 also with a view to appreciate the problem under our consideration : "11. Appointment-Appointment by the Management : (1) On receipt of communication of approval or as the case may be on the expiry of the period of one month under clause (iii) of sub rule (5) of rule 10, the management shall first offer appointment to the candidate given the first preference by the selection committee and on his failure to join the post, to the candidate next to him in the list prepared by the selection committee and on the failure of such candidate also, to the last candidate specified in such list. (2) (a) The appointment letter shall be sent under the signature of the the Manager by registered post to the selected candidate. (b) The appointment letter shall clearly specify the name of post, the pay scale and the nature of appointment whether permanent or temporary, and shall also specify that if the candidate does not join within 15 days from the date of receipt of the appointment letter his appointment shall be cancelled. (c) A copy of the appointment letter shall also be sent to the District Basic Education Officer."
(2.) THE Selection Committee prepared three lists in order of preference for appointment of the aforesaid four Assistant teachers as is evident from Annexure "1" to the counter affidavit of Sri S. P. Gupta. In our opinion, the selection committee has committed a mistake in not preparing four lists of three candidates for each post. Moreover, rule 10 (5) (ii) indicates that if the District Basic Education Officer is not satisfied as aforesaid, he shall return the papers to the management with the direction that the matter shall be reconsidered by the selection committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that opposite party no. 3 in the present writ petition has been wrongly appointed at the dictation of opposite party no. 2 who did not comply with the provisions of rule 10 (5) (ii) as quoted above. It has been contended before us that the petitioner was a better candidate then opposite party no. 3 and her claim has been wrongly and arbitrarily negatived by opposite party no. 1 and 2. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : "(i) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the approval accorded by respondent no. 2 on 10-3-1989 in favour of respondent no. 3 and to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 to place all the relevant documents before this Honourable court for perusal. (ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents nos. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint her as an Assistant Teacher in place of resondent no. 3 who has been illegally appointed. (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to take work from respondent no. 3 and not to pay her salary because her appointment is basically illegal. (iv) any other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and allow the petition with costs." The learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. According to him, respondent no. i is a better candidate than the petitioner and she was rightly appointed by the authorities concerned. It has also been stressed that the petitioner has concealed material facts and has not given true facts in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed outright. In this connection, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 has placed reliance upon the ruling of this court reported in Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achhru Ram, AIR 1951 Allahabad 746, wherein it has been emphasised that the petitioner with a view to get relief under Art. 226 of the constitution must come with clean hands, must not suppress any relevant facts from the court, must refrain from making misleading statements and from giving incorrect information to the court. Courts for their own protection should insist that persons invoking these extraordinary powers should not attempt in any manner to misuse this valuable right by obtaining ex-parte orders by suppression, misrepresentation or mis-statement of facts. If the facts are stated in such a way as to mislead and deceive the court, there is a power inherent in the court, in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process, to discharge the interim order and to refuse to proceed further with the examination of the merits of the application."
(3.) WE have considered the contention raised on behalf of the parties. WE have also looked into the records produced by the management in connection with the appointment of the aforesaid four teachers. The claim of opposite party no. 3 that she is better candidate than the petitioner as given in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit of Dr. S. C. Dwivedi does not appear as correct. The chart indicating 'nil' against 'experience' in the column of the petitioner is wrong. The submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 in the present writ petition in this regard is based on disputed question of fact. Therefore, we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 that she is a better candidate than the petitioner. It is noteworthy that opposite party no. 2 has not acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of rule 10 (5) (ii) as quoted above. Opposite parly no. 2 could return the papers to the management with the direction that the matter should be reconsidered if he was not satisfied with the list submitted by the selection committee. He has patently erred in according approval to Smt. Prabha Dwivedi who was in the 3rd list submitted by the selection committee.;