S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is in the service of the Punjab National Bank in Scale IV. A District Credit Plan Scheme was formulated by the Government of India. In pursuance of the said scheme the Punjab National Bank was allocated 41 Districts by the Reserve Bank of India/Government of India for the purpose of monitoring and implementation of the said scheme. More popularly known as the Lead Bank Scheme. Initially one C. R. Dass an officer of the Reserve Bank of India was placed on deputation to the Punjab National Bank to look after the job, he was reverted back in 1980. Thereafter K. K. Tandon, another officer of the Reserve Bank of India, who is respondent no. 5 in the present petition was deputed to the Punjab National Bank. He came on deputation to the Punjab National Bank with effect from 1-4-1981 and he was placed in scale IV in the Bank. Initially K. K. Tandon was placed on deputation for one year. The period of his deputation was extended from time to time with the approval of the Board of the Punjab National Bank and ultimately he was absorbed in the Punjab National Bank on 8-5-1985. The petitioner was appointed to scale IV as Regional Manager on 10-3-1984. When K. K. Tandon was absorbed in the Punjab National Bank in scale IV on 8-5 85, the Punjab National Bank determined his seniority with effect from 1-4-81 the date on which he came on deputation to the Bank. The petitioner has now challenged, by means of the present petition, the fixation of seniority of K. K. Tandon. According to the petitioner K. K. Tandon should be given seniority with effect from 8-5-85 and not from 1-4-81. The effect would be that if the seniority is taken from 8-5-85 the petitioner would become senior to K. K. Tandon. The petitioner has also challenged the appointment of K. K. Tandon on deputation to the Punjab National Bank.
(2.) WE have heard Sri S. N. Misra, Senior Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, Sri S, S. Bhatnagar, Advocate General on behalf of the Punjab National Bank and Sri S. C. Maheshwari, Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 5 K. K. Tandon. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the appointment of K. K. Tandon on deputation is invalid as the Punjab National Bank had no power to appoint K. K. Tandon by deputation and absorption in scale IV in the Bank. His second submission is that K. K. Tandon was absorbed on 8-5-85. This should be taken as date of appointment in scale IV and the period he worked on deputation from 1-4-81 to 7-5-85 should not be counted for determining the seniority of K. K. Tandon. The learned Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner has concealed relevant facts from this court and as such he was not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) WE will now consider first the preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General. In para 19 of the counter affidavit of Sri C.K.D. Gowda (hereinafter referred to as the first counter affidavit) filed on behalf of the Punjab National Bank it has been stated that the petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has concealed material facts to the effect that the petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit being suit no. 575 of 1986 in the court of Civil Judge, Varanasi. In para 26 of the counter affidavit of K. K. Tandon, respondent no. 5 (hereinafter referred to as the second counter affidavit) it has been further alleged that the petitioner having failed to secure a stay order from the court, filed the present writ petition and after having obtained a stay order from the High Court withdrew the suit on 1-10-86. The petitioner in reply filed supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 10-2-86 made specific averments in para 4 that the case was certainly instituted but no application for injunction was made and no date had been fixed nor was the case taken up before the Civil Judge and as advised by the Senior Counsel he made an application for withdrawal of the said suit. It has been further stated that he had made the application for withdrawal much before the writ petition was filed before this Court. In view of the assertions made in the supplementary rejoinder affidavit, C.K.D. Gowda filed supplementary counter affidavit on that very date namely 10-2-88 and in this affidavit it has been categorically stated that the suit no. 575 of 1986 was filed by the petitioner on 1-9-86. On 2-9-86 he moved an application to implead defendant no. 4 as pro-forma defendant; a certified copy of this application has been annexed to this affidavit. It has been further stated that on 6-9-86 petitioner moved an application to issue ex parte interim injunction restraining the Chairman and Managing Director from carrying out confirmation, regulansation and promotion on the basis of illegal seniority list. The said application was supported by an affidavit of the petitioner himself dated 6-9-86. Both these documents have been filed as Annexures II and III to this affidavit. It has been further stated that the learned Civil Judge did not grant an exparte injunction but issued notices to the defendants including K. K. Tandon fixing 30-10-86. A copy of the summons issued fixing 30-10-86 has also been filed as Annexure IV. It is, therefore, clear that the assertion made by the petitioner in the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit dated 10-2-88 that he did not move any injunction application and no date has been fixed is absolutely false assertion made by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in this court on 17-9-86 and obtained an ex-parte interim order on that date, to the effect that selection to the post of Assistant General Manager may proceed but there shall be no appointment made on the basis thereof. We have gone through the entire petition. The petitioner has completely concealed the fact of the filing of the suit in the court at Varanasi and he has also concealed the fact that he did not get an exparte injunction order in the said suit and that on 6-9-86 the notices have been issued by the Civil Judge fixing 30-10-86 as the date on which the injunction application was to be taken up for consideration. In our opinion the petitioner clearly concealed the material fact from this court and having failed to obtain an exparte order from the Varanasi court filed the present writ petition in this court concealing the fact of the filing of the suit and the injunction application and obtained an exparte order from this court, This conduct dis-entitles the petitioner for being heard in this petition on merits. In Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achhruram, AIR 1951 Alld. 746, a Full Bench of this Court has clearly laid down that a person obtaining an exparte order or rule nisi by means of a petition for exercise of the extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution must come with clean hands, must not suppress any relevant facts from the Court, must refrain from making mis-leading statement and from giving incorrect information to the Court. The courts for their own protection should insist that persons invoking these extra ordinary powers should not attempt in any manner to misuse this valuable right by obtaining exparte orders by suppression, mis-representation or mis-statement of facts. In our opinion the principles laid down in the case of Asiatic Engineering Company (supra) fully applies to the facts of the present case. The petitioner clearly concealed the fact of the filing of the suit in Varanasi Court for the same relief. He further concealed that he had already made an application for injunction and that he did not get an exparte injunction order and that 28-10-86 had been fixed for consideration of the injunction order. The statement made by him that he neither moved an injunction application nor any date had been fixed nor was the case taken up before the Civil Judge is a false averment. This conduct of making a false averment before this Court is reprehensible and is unbecoming of a senior officer of the rank which the petitioner is holding in the organisation. In the circumstances the preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General is substantiated and the petitioner is not entitled to be heard on merits at all. But since we have heard the parties on merits also, we think it necessary in the interests of justice to consider the petitioner's case on merits also.;