G.M. LODHA, Actg. C J. -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 any one 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 extra-ordinary 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. 4. It is high time that the litigants who give due seriousness to the affidavits and be accountable for the penal liability in case they are bound to be deliberately false. 5. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. The stay order is also vacated.