JUDGMENT 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. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The Punjab National Bank was initially limited Company. It was nationalised by the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act No. 5 of 1970. 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. 5. The Punjab National Bank was initially limited Company. It was nationalised by the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act No. 5 of 1970. It was nomenclated as the Punjab National Bank. Section 7 (2) of the Act clearly provides that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of corresponding new bank shall vest in Board of Directors which shall be entitled to exercise all such powers and to do such acts and things as the respondent new bank as authorised to exercise and do. In pursuance of this power the Board of Directors became the Chief Executive Authority for running the Bank. Section 19 of the Act empowers the Board of Directors after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the previous sanction of the Central Government to make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or any scheme made thereunder to provide for all matters for which provisions is expedient for the purposes of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. 6. In pursuance of the power conferred under section 19 of the Act, Punjab National Bank (Officers) Services Regulations 1979 were framed. Regulation 14 is relevant for the purpose of this case and is quoted below :- 14 "All appointments in, and promotions to, the Officer grade shall be made by the competent authority in the light of the guidelines of the Government, if any." In a meeting of the Board of Directors held on 5-8-79 a resolution was passed to the effect that the competent authority for making appointments in the seniority management grade (Scale IV) is the Chairman. It is necessary to state the facts which led to the appointment of the petitioner on deputation. High power Committee under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India with the Chairman of a few nationalised Banks as members were regularly reviewing the progress by the Banks towards implementation of the District Credit plans. In the circumstances it was found necessary that the Punjab National Bank should put a person well experienced in his job to look after the work. In the circumstances it was found necessary that the Punjab National Bank should put a person well experienced in his job to look after the work. After taking into consideration the qualifications of the petitioner a proposal was made on 24-11-80 to the Board of Directors of the Bank for utilising the services of K. K. Tandon. This proposal was accepted by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 23-12-80. This has been stated in para 8 of the first counter-affidavit. On 25-8-81 with the concurrence of the Chairman K. K. Tandon was appointed on deputation in senior management grade scale IV with effect from 1-4-81. No rule has been shown to us where any prohibition has been laid down from appointing a person on deputation or absorbing him. In fact under regulation 14 quoted above the competent authority namely the Chairman of the Board was entitled to make appointment to the officer grade which was done in the present case and as such we find no legal infirmity in the appointment of K. K. Tandon on deputation in scale IV of the Bank. 7. In so far as the absorption of K. K. Tandon is concerned on 12-6-84 the Bank made a request to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India to permit absorption of K. K. Tandon on permanent basis. On 5-1-85 the Government sent its no objection to K. K. Tandon's absorption to the Bank vide letter dated 5-1-85 attached as Annexure B to the first counter-affidavit. Thereafter the Reserve Bank of India had also accepted the proposal of the Bank subject to K. K. Tandon's resigning from the service of the Reserve Bank of INdia. IN the second counter-affidavit the letter of the Reserve Bank of INdia dated 12-12-85 has been annexed as Annexure CA-VI. This is an office order no. 334 passed by the Reserve Bank of India in which it has been clearly stated that the resignation of K. K. Tandon has been accepted and be is relieved from the Bank service at the close of the business on 7-5-85. The Board in its meeting held on 25-2-85 had accepted the recommendation to absorb K. K. Tandon in senior management grade scale IV. IN view of these facts K. K. Tandon was absorbed in the service of the Bank in senior management grade scale IV with effect from 8-5-85. The Board in its meeting held on 25-2-85 had accepted the recommendation to absorb K. K. Tandon in senior management grade scale IV. IN view of these facts K. K. Tandon was absorbed in the service of the Bank in senior management grade scale IV with effect from 8-5-85. It is, therefore, clear that the absorption of K. K. Tandon was made by the Board with concurrence of the government as well as the Reserve Bank of India. We do not find any illegality in K. K. Tandon being absorbed in the service of the Bank. 8. It is to be noted here that K. K. Tandon was appointed on deputation as far as back on 1-4-81 but no challenge was made by the petitioner for all these six years when K. K. Tandon worked as an officer in scale IV. We do not find any force in the first contention raised by the petitioner. In regard to the second contention regarding seniority the General Manager Administration vide has letter dated 17-2-86 to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs Banking Division, New Delhi specifically wrote to the Government that R. K. Tandon is being given notional seniority in senior management grade scale IV with effect from the date he came on deputation to the Punjab National Bank i.e. on 1-4-81. It was further stated in this letter that the pay fixation in seniority has been proposed on the basis of the Ministry of Finance O. M. No. 2 (57)/68-BPE(GM) dated 19-11-69. This proposal was accepted by the Government of India vide their letter dated 27-3-86. The letters dated 17-2-86 and 27-3-86 have been attached as Annexure G and H to the first counter-affidavit. 9. O.M. no. 2(57)/68-BPE(GM) dated 19-11-69 is quoted below : " Pursuant to the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission in their Report on " Public Sector Undertakings " Government have already issued necessary instructions to be followed with regard to deputation of Government officers to public Enterprises. These instructions require officers of the permanent civil services on deputation with the Public Enterprises to exercise option either in favour of permanent absorption in the Public Enterprises, where they are serving on resignation from Government service or reversion to their parent cadre, exceptions to be allowed in the case of Defence Personnel on their appointment to Defence Production Undertakings. These instructions require officers of the permanent civil services on deputation with the Public Enterprises to exercise option either in favour of permanent absorption in the Public Enterprises, where they are serving on resignation from Government service or reversion to their parent cadre, exceptions to be allowed in the case of Defence Personnel on their appointment to Defence Production Undertakings. Officers of the Industrial Management Pool have also been exempted from the requirement of exercising option in view of their special position with regard to service in Public Enterprises. 2. In this context, the question of seniority of deputationists vis-a-vis other officers of the enterprises, and also that of dealing with the provident fund of deputationists who opt for absorption, have been raised by some enterprises and cadre authorities. In deciding the seniority of deputationists vis-a-vis company employees in a particular grade, the important consideration will no doubt, have to be the responsibilities that are being discharged by the deputationists in the appointments held in the Public Enterprises and the total period for which such responsibilities are being discharged. As regards the Provident Fund the question arises whether Government could allow the transfer of the Provident Fund of a Government servant to the Public Enterprises, which he has selected for service. Even if this is done, this will have to be made entirely optional to the officers as the officers may consider in some cases investing their G.P.F. credits elsewhere. 3. Since these issues are likely to arise almost in all the Public Enterprises, it has been considered necessary to lay down the principles which could be followed. After examining all the relevant aspects, the following principles which have been accepted, are accordingly circulated- (i) Seniority-The seniority of officers opting for service in an enterprise should be fixed in a particular grade with effect from the date of their original deputation to that grade and not from the date of exercising their option, regardless of the terms offered to them. (ii) Provident Fund Account-The amount of subscriptions, together with interest thereon, standing in the Provident Fund account of a Government officer opting for service under an enterprise may, if he so desires, be transferred to his new Provident Fund account under the enterprise provided the concerned enterprise also agrees to such a transfer. (ii) Provident Fund Account-The amount of subscriptions, together with interest thereon, standing in the Provident Fund account of a Government officer opting for service under an enterprise may, if he so desires, be transferred to his new Provident Fund account under the enterprise provided the concerned enterprise also agrees to such a transfer. If however, the concerned enterprise does not operate a Provident Fund, the amount in question should be refunded to the subscriber. An Officer covered by a Government Contributory Provident Fund will also be allowed if he so desires to carry forward the corpus of the amount, including Government contributions to his new Provident Fund account under the enterprise. Once such a transfer of Provident Fund balance has taken place, the officer will be governed by the Provident Fund Rules of the concerned enterprise and not by the Provident Fund Rules of the Government. In so far as officers governed by the G.P.F. (CS) Rules, 1960 or C.P.F. Rules (India), 1962 are concerned, the orders contained in the preceding sub-paragraph issue in partial relaxation of the provisions of Explanation III below Rule 31 of the former mentioned Rules and Explanation III below Rules 33 of the latter mentioned Rules. 4. In so far as the persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department are concerned these orders have been issued after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. " These instructions are contained in the volume I ' Government policy for the management of Public Enterprises. ' From a reading of these instructions it is clear that Government has issued instructions that seniority of deputationist shall be determined in the manner laid down. It has been specifically laid down that the seniority of officers opting for service in an enterprises should be fixed in a particular grade with effect from the date of the original deputation to that grade and not from the date of exercising their option regardless of the terms offered to them. In view of these specific instructions which have been accepted by the Bank the fixation of K. K. Tandon, seniority from 1-4-81 cannot be said to be in any manner illegal. 10. In view of these specific instructions which have been accepted by the Bank the fixation of K. K. Tandon, seniority from 1-4-81 cannot be said to be in any manner illegal. 10. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the decision in K. Madhavan v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2291 Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined as follows :- "We may examine the question from a different point of view. There is not much difference between deputation and transfer. Indeed, when a deputationist is permanently absorbed in the C.B.I., he is under the rules appointed on transfer. In other words, deputation may be regarded as a transfer from one government department to another. It will be against all rules of service jurisprudence, if a government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same or an equivalent post in another government department, the period of his service in the post before his transfer is not taken into consideration in computing his seniority in the transfer post. The transfer cannot wipe out his length of service in post from which he has been transferred. It has been observed by this Court that it is a just and wholesome principle only apply where persons from different sources are drafted to serve in a new service that their preexisting total length of service in the parent department should be respected and presented by taking the same into account in determining their ranking in the new service cadre. " In our opinion, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court would be applicable in the case of deputation also. Once a deputationist is working continuously for a certain period and thereafter he is absorbed in the scale on which he came on deputation he is entitled to claim for the purposes of seniority to add the period of deputation to the length of his service on the said scale. In the instant case, K. K. Tandon was actually absorbed on 8-5-85. He admittedly worked on deputation on the same scale from 1-4-81 and as such was entitled to add the period which he worked on deputation as a period of his service for the purpose of seniority. "This in fact was done by the Bank and we do not find any illegality in the same. K. K. Tandon was rightly given seniority with effect from 1-4-81. "This in fact was done by the Bank and we do not find any illegality in the same. K. K. Tandon was rightly given seniority with effect from 1-4-81. In the result, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not have any substance. 11. In view of the above the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. The interim orders passed by this Hon'ble Court on 17-9-86, 22-5-87 and 25-8-87 are, hereby, vacated. Petition dismissed.