- (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. Be that as it may, by reason of the impugned order dated 13th August, 1991 passed in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991 challenging the reversion, the said writ petition virtually stand allowed. In the meantime, the petitioner who has attained 58 years of age on 30th April, 1991, cannot be expected to coiitmue beyond 30th April, 1993 even if his age of retirement is 60 years. Therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous and is, accordingly dismissed. On the other hand, it may be noted in case the petitioner sticks to his promo tion and succeeds in challenging the rever sion, in that event, he cannot continue beyond 58 years since the age of retire ment of a Naib-Tehsildar is 58 years. The petitioner had taken advantage of the in terim order granted on 7th. May, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991, wherein he had claimed that he holds the post of a Patwari since absorbed in the post of Lekhpal and as such, is entitled to con tinue till 60 years of age. Unless he is holding the post of Lekhpal, he cannot claim to continue till 60 years. Therefore, the interim order in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991 was obtained by misleading this Court and in a sheer abuse of process of Court. He cannot take advantage of both ends at the same time. In as much as on the one hand he is claiming that he is holding the substantive post of Patwari absorbed in Lekhpal and as such, is en titled to continue till 60 years and at the same time he cannot continue in the post of Naib- Tehsildar and resist reversion to the post of Lekhpal and continue beyond 58 years of age.
(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. Since the petitioner had come up with unclean hands, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and any advantage that he might have taken out of the interim order, should be recovered from him. In case the petitioner had received salary in the post of Naib-Tehsildar after 13th August, 1991, in that the same should be recovered from the petitioner as arrear of land revenue or may be adjusted from the retrial benefits, if payable to him together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum simple from the respective date of pay ment of such amount to the petitioner till the date of recovery.;