JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Mathur, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge on 25.11.1993 in Civil Order No. 15178 (W) of 1991 whereby he dismissed the application of the writ petitioner for recalling the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 26.2.1993 while disposing of the writ petition. The order dated 25.11.1993 is set out hereunder: – "This is an application for recalling the order dated 26th February, 1993 at the instance of the petitioner. In this application, the petitioner has made a prayer for recalling the order dated 26th February, 1993. On 26th February, 1993 this Court disposed of the writ petition by observing, inter alia, as follows: – "It also appears from the order that no interim order was passed by this Court on 20th December, 1991, restraining the respondents from giving effect or further effect to the interview. It was indicated in the order that the appointment, if any made on the basis of the interview that would abide by the result of the writ petition. Unfortunately, the learned Advocate on record addressed the letters to all concerned communicating incorrect order and thereby prevented the District Inspector of Schools from according approval so also the Managing Committee from appointing any teacher and thereby ultimately, the students community have been prejudiced. It is expected that the writ petitioner will come in the writ Court in clean hands and accordingly, does not deserve any consideration from this Court." Considering the facts and circumstances and after hearing the learned Advocate for the parties, 1 dismissed the application for recalling the order. I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by this Court on 26th February, 1993. Accordingly, the application for recalling the order dated 26th February, 1993, is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. I place it on record that pursuant to the order dated 26th February, 1993, District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Bankura, accorded approval to the panel and pursuant to such panel, respondent No. 7 was given appointment on 17th March, 1993 and since then the respondent No. 7 has been serving. Respondents are given liberty to approve the appointment in accordance with law. Respondents are also given liberty to give the prescribed scale of pay. Respondents are given liberty to approve the appointment in accordance with law. Respondents are also given liberty to give the prescribed scale of pay. Let a plain copy of this order duly counter signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on usual undertaking. All parties will act upon the plain copy of this order." 2. We have heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the record. 3. In fact, learned Single Judge found that the petitioner's Advocate adopted unfair means, because he gave a wrong impression to the District Inspector of Schools and the Managing Committee of the School that if any appointment is made it shall be subject to the result of writ petition whereas no such order was passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned Single Judge found that this kind of fast practice cannot be permitted and accordingly dismissed the writ petition that the petitioner has not come up with clean hands. 4. This order is sought to be recalled by moving the application for recalling of the order dated 26.2.93 which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order in the instant appeal, and in our opinion, rightly. Whoever approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should approach with clean hands. This sacrosanct jurisdiction cannot be permitted to be polluted by unclean hands. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. I agree.