Gurmail Singh vs State of Punjab

MaheshGrover, J.

1 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to amend the final seniority list of Senior Assistants issued on 12.5.2003 as also to amend the subsequent list issued on 30.1.2007 to place the name of the petitioner above Sr. No.28 to 33.

Another prayer has been made directing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to amend the final seniority list of Employment Generation and Training Officers issued on 25.6.2010 and modified on 8.11.2010 so as to place him over and above Smt. Balbir Kaur-respondent No.4 with a further prayer that he be promoted as Employment Generation and Training Officer w.e.f. the date when said Balbir Kaur was promoted i.e. on 30.12.2005. The petitioner in the first three paragraphs of the petition has stated that he was appointed as a Senior Assistant in the Department of Employment now called as Department of Employment Generation and Training vide letter dated 10.12.1998 on regular basis and he joined as such on 31.12.1998 whereas respondent No.4 Smt. Balbir Kaur was regularized as a Sr. Assistant from 1.7.2000. It is, thus, projected by the petitioner that he stands senior to Smt. Balbir Kaur having entered in service as a Sr. Assistant on 10.12.1998 and in this regard he has placed reliance on the rule of seniority, which talks of determination on the basis of continuous length of service with the present appointee by direct recruitment senior to the person appointed otherwise.

During the course of proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner projected before this Court that he was appointed on direct basis and if the rule of seniority had to be considered, evidently he was to be placed senior to Smt. Balbir Kaur and the respondents having denied assigned place of seniority have committed a grave error.

Respondent No.4 has submitted her reply in which it has been stated that the petitioner was initially working on daily wages in the department of Census. Upon the abolition of this department, the petitioner as also other similarly situated persons were allocated to different departments of the State of Punjab when the petitioner finding his place in the Treasury office as a Cashier and was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200- 2100.

Respondent No.4, on the other hand, was working in the parent department and earned her promotion as Senior Assistant after having qualified the exam and was placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-3200. From this, it is sought to be contended that respondent No.4, being in the higher pay-scale, could not be considered junior to the petitioner under any circumstances. It has also been stated in the reply that the petitioner was absorbed as Sr. Assistant while other similarly situated persons as the petitioner were absorbed as Clerks. Petitioner''s appointment as a Sr. Assistant was subjected to challenge in a writ petition by these persons who were treated differently by the Department. What happened to that writ petition is not clear but suffice it to say that the respondents assert that the issue is pending before the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has concealed all these facts and only tried to assert that he was senior by giving an impression that he was appointed on direct basis through an open selection. This is precisely the contention raised repeatedly before this Court.

In the considered view of this Court, there has been acute concealment of facts by the petitioner thereby discrediting his entire claim which has to be negated solely on this ground. It is a settled principle of law that a person who does not approach the Court with clean hands, does not deserve any indulgence from the Court. It was for the petitioner to set out all the facts clearly before the Court if he wanted the Court''s interference in the seniority list against which he is aggrieved.

The facts as indicated by respondent No.4 would certainly not enhance the case of the petitioner as he was placed much lower in pay scale before his absorption as Senior Assistant. In any case, without commenting on this controversy any further, I am of the considered view that the petition has to be dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner has concealed the material facts from this Court. Even if he was confronted with the reply of the respondents, he made no attempt to rectify the situation but continued with his persistence by making submission on the basis of the assertions made in the petition. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramjas Foundation and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, has observed as follows:

"A person who does not come to Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and if any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Article 32, 226 & 136 of the Constitution but also to the case instituted in other Courts and judicial forums. A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."

The petition is, therefore, dismissed and the petitioner is burdened with costs of Rs. 50,000/- for unnecessarily wasting the time of this Court by making a false assertion to the Court. The costs be deposited before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.

In case the petitioner does not do so, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner shall ensure that these costs shall be deducted from his salary and deposited as indicated above.