- (1.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that no interference is called for. The petitioner has now admitted that during the relevant period he was serving at Udaipur in a Government undertaking. Obviously, his attendance became short on that account.
(2.) It is unfortunate that the petitioner gave an affidavit to show that it was not correct. We would have thought of prosecuting the petitioner, but we feel that the affidavit given was out of over-enthusiasm for having the educational qualification, and has not harmed anyone because the respondents have shown that it was incorrect.
(3.) However, we would like to put a word of caution to the litigants particularly who come under Art.226 of the Constitution for obtaining equitable relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction by way of stay orders. It is well established principle that no tainted hands should be allowed to touch the pure fountains of justice and, therefore, such writ petitions can be dismissed only on this ground and the deponent of such false affidavits can be prosecuted.;