JUDGMENT T.N.K. Singh, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the writ Petitioners and private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are trying to open the cupboards of one another which are full of skeletons. The Petitioners and private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are not disputing the well settled principles of law that: (a) "a person who does not approach the court with clean hands cannot seek equity". The Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s GAR Re-rolling Mills and Anr. AIR 1994 SC 2151 held that "there is no equity in favour of a defaulting party which may justify interference by the court in exercise of its equitable extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assist it in not repaying its debts. The aim of equity is to promote honesty and not to frustrate the legitimate rights of the Corporation which after advancing the loan takes steps to recover its due from the defaulting parties. (b) The Apex Court, through the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.H. Ahamadi, Chief Justice (he then was) in the J.H. Patel v. Subhan Khan (1996) 5 SCC 312 held that it is not merely a question of equity but a question of principles that a person who deliberately and designedly failed to disclose the information within its special knowledge and failed to produce materials in that behalf, thereby virtually engineering the rejection of his nomination cannot be permitted to raise a fresh ground which would adversely affect the opposite party. (c) The Apex Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 166 had discussed the circumstances under which writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of fact. The Apex Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) held that the fact suppressed in filing the writ petition would be suppression of material fact. The suppression of fact which must be material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merit of the case. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the Court, where view the court may have taken. (d) The Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sarav Preet and Ors. It must be a matter which was material for the consideration of the Court, where view the court may have taken. (d) The Apex Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sarav Preet and Ors. (2002) 9 SCC 610 held that it is the obligation of the writ Petitioner to disclose the material fact. Para 4 of the judgment in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sarav Preet and Ors. (supra) reads as follows: 4. It is brought to our notice that the Respondent had in fact appeared in the examination conducted by Punjab University which had been authorized to conduct such examination for recruitment of Lecturers in Geography and she had applied for the same in the year 1995 with Roll No. 3316 but she failed in the same. If that was so, the Respondent had an obligation to disclose this fact before the High Court. Not having done so and not possessing the relevant qualification and all that she possessed was only a qualification in a related subject, which was not sufficient for the purpose of the recruitment is sufficient to dismiss her petition. In the circumstances we think the view of the High Court is not justified and same should be set aside and the writ petition filed by the Respondent should be dismissed. It is ordered accordingly. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. 2. Both the parties have to keep in view in mind that the High Court is bound to consider the averments on its true merit before granting the relief to the Petitioner. The relief cannot be granted merely because the averments in the writ petition had not been specifically rebutted. According to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72 , the High Court has to consider the averments of the writ Petitioner in the writ petition in its true merits even if there is no specific rebuttal on the part of the Respondents before granting the relief to the writ Petitioner. 3. Keeping in view of the above accepted principles of law, the case of the writ Petitioners as well as the case of the private Respondent Nos. 3. Keeping in view of the above accepted principles of law, the case of the writ Petitioners as well as the case of the private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 had been taen up for decision on the short material fact alleged by the writ Petitioners in the present writ petition and a number of additional affidavit and rejoinder affidavits filed by the writ Petitioners and also those of the Respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in their Affidavit in opposition and additional Affidavit in opposition. Surprisingly in the present writ petition which was filed in the year, 1997 not only the writ Petitioners but also the private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 had filed a number of addl. Affidavit, reply affidavit and rejoinder affidavits without obtaining permission of the court till 9th of June, 2006. 4. From perusal of the writ petition, additional Affidavit and rejoinder affidavit of the Petitioner as well as the Affidavit in opposition and additional Affidavit in opposition of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, there is a serious disputed question of fact about the initial appointments of the writ Petitioners and also the initial appointments of private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as Lecturers in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong. 5. From the side of the writ Petitioners it has been alleged that the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 16.9.1998 passed in Writ Appeal No. 110 of 1996 (Ref.: C.R. No. 498 of 1996) had finally decided that the Petitioners had been appointed initially as Lecturers in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong by the order of the Chairman of the Managing Committee, Dated 10.5.1995. But it is also clear from the record that the Petitioners never disclosed the material fact of earlier appointment orders issued by the Chairman of the Governing Body of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong dated 23.7.1992 and 10.5.1994 appointing as Lecturers in that college in respect of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. And further, the writ Petitioners did not mention in the present petition about the earlier appointment of the Petitioners as Lecturers prior to 1995 and later on as to how and why they had been appointed again on 10.5.1995. 1 and 2. And further, the writ Petitioners did not mention in the present petition about the earlier appointment of the Petitioners as Lecturers prior to 1995 and later on as to how and why they had been appointed again on 10.5.1995. As discussed above, it is the bounden duty of the Petitioners to disclose the material fact and also this Court has to see the case of the Petitioners before granting relief. It is also equally settled principles of law that there is no finality on the decision of the fact which has never been asserted and discussed in the earlier writ petitions. Such being the accepted principles of law, the assertion of the Petitioners that the finding of fact regarding their initial appointments had attained finality vide decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.6.1998 passed in W.A. No. 110 of 1998 (Ref.: C.R. No. 489 of 1998) which has been obtained by the writ Petitioners without disclosing the material facts cannot be accepted. 6. The Petitioners filed the present writ petition alleging that they were appointed for the first time as Lecturers in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong vide orders of the Chairman, Governing Body of the College being No. 1/TC/3/86-Tamenglong dated 10.5.1995, and also that the Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 never served in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong and Respondent No. 5, Shri Rameshwar Singh served in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong on voluntary basis for a short period w.e.f. 14.3.1989 but as he did not appear before the DPC held on 10.2.1991 he was not appointed as Lecturer in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong. 7. The Chairman of the Governing Body of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong arbitrarily and without any basis submitted the incorrect list of teaching staff and non teaching staff of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong as on 26.8.1995 to the Education Department, Government of Manipur when the proposal for taking over of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong was made by the State Government. In the said list submitted by the Chairman, Governing body, names of the writ Petitioners as well as the names of the Respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were not included in the list of teaching staff. In the said list submitted by the Chairman, Governing body, names of the writ Petitioners as well as the names of the Respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were not included in the list of teaching staff. It is said that on detecting the submission of the incorrect or incomplete numbers of teaching staff to the Government of Manipur, the Chairman, Governing Body of the College submitted a list of teaching staff of the College as on 30.8.1995 in which names of the writ Petitioners appear at Sl. Nos. 27, 19 and 31 respectively to the Government of Manipur. 8. It is also stated by the writ Petitioners that by an order of the Government of Manipur being No. 1/20/85 S/SE, Imphal the 16.3.1996 the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong/Private Tamenglong College had been taken over on the following terms and conditions that: (i) The aforementioned College is taken over with effect from 1.4.1996. (ii) No liability of the College on the date of taking over shall be accepted by the Government. The Governing Body of the College will have to settle them before the date of actual taking over. (iii) The Government shall not entertain any claim for compensation for any movable or immovable properties. All landed property belonging to the College before its taking over by the Government should be duly registered and mutated in the name of College and the same should be deposited to the Government. No compensation of the land, buildings or any another assets transferred will be paid. (iv) All assets of the College whether movable or immovable shall remain in fact and shall have to be physically handed over to a representative of the department on the aforesaid date of the taking over and shall belong to the Government from the said date of taking over. The Government Body of this College shall not transfer any assets of the College as existing at present by way of sale, transfer or otherwise. (v) All matters relating to the services of the staff, seniority and protection of their past services shall be decided in due course but not later than 30.4.1996. (vi) The services of the staff of the College shall be absorbed in Govt. service from the aforesaid date of taking over of the College only. (v) All matters relating to the services of the staff, seniority and protection of their past services shall be decided in due course but not later than 30.4.1996. (vi) The services of the staff of the College shall be absorbed in Govt. service from the aforesaid date of taking over of the College only. (vii) All the existing staff of the College will be paid salaries and allowances with effect from the date of suppression of the erstwhile Governing Body at the rate of salary already drawn by them under the superceeded Governing Body. (viii) The Principal of the College may be absorbed as in-charge Principal but may be given the status of the Lecturer only. 9. The Government of Manipur issued order being No. 1/20/85 S/SE (Pt.-1) Imphal the 6.6.1996 for appointing 29 teaching staff of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong in the service of the Government of Manipur w.e.f. 1.4 1996 subject to the final absorption on fulfilment of the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 16.3.1996. It is alleged that in the said order of Government of Manipur dated 6.6.1996 names of the writ Petitioners are not included in the 29 teaching staff of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong appointed in the service of the Government of Manipur. It is also alleged that the 2 (two) teaching staff namely, (1) Shri Thiyam Premchand Singh and (2) Md. Yusuf Ali never served in the Tamenglong College, nor their names appeared in the list of staff prepared by the Chairman, Governing Body of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong prepared as on 26.8.1995 and 30.8.1995 were included in the list of the teaching staff appointed in the service of the Government of Manipur under the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 6.6.1996. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 6.6.1996, the present writ Petitioners filed a joint writ petition being C.R. No. 498 of 1996 for enforcing their rights to treat equally in the manner of other employees of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong before this Court. This Court (Single Judge) dismissed the writ petition by passing judgment and order dated 24.6.1995. This Court (Single Judge) dismissed the writ petition by passing judgment and order dated 24.6.1995. The Writ Appeal i.e. W.A. No. 110 of 1996 filed by the writ Petitioners against the judgment and order of this Court dated 24.6.1996 (Division Bench) had been allowed with the direction to the State Respondents to consider the case of the present Petitioners for appointment to the posts of Lecturers in their respective discipline by passing judgment and order dated 16.9.1998. In compliance with the judgment and order of this Court (Division Bench) dated 16.9.1998 passed in W.A. No. 110 of 1996, the Government of Manipur issued order being No. 11/36/96 S/SE Imphal 11.8.1999 for appointing the writ Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in the service of the Government of Manipur subject to the condition that their final absorption into respective grade would be in accordance with the recommendation of the MPSC (Manipur Public Service Commission) pertaining to the suitability of their appointment, service condition and interse seniority in the grade. Copy of which is available at Annexure-A/26 to the supplementary affidavit of the Petitioner dated 2.1.1996. Further, in compliance with the said judgment and order of this Court (Division Bench) dated 16.9.1998 passed in W.A. No. 110 of 1996 (Ref.: C.R. No. 498 of 1996), Petitioner No. 3 was also appointed in the service of the Government of Manipur under the Government of Manipur order being No. 11/36/96-SE Imphal the 1.3.2000 subject to the condition that his final absorption into respective grade would be made in accordance with the recommendation of the MPSC pertaining to the suitability of his appointment, service condition and interse seniority, copy of which is available at Annexure-A/27 to the supplementary affidavit of the Petitioner dated 2.1.2006. 10. It is said that the private Respondent Nos. 10. It is said that the private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 whose names had not appeared in the list of teaching staff prepared by the Chairman, Governing Body of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong, as on 26.8.1995 and also the another list of teaching staff as on 30.8.1995 prepared by the Chairman, Governing Body had been appointed illegally and arbitrarily to the service of the Government of Manipur w.e.f. 1.4.1996 subject to the condition that their final absorption into respective grades of the concerned Government would be in accordance with the recommendation of the MPSC pertaining to the suitability of their appointment, service condition, interse seniority of the concerned grade vide order of the Government of Manipur. a) No. 1/20/85 S/SE (Pt-1) dated 2.7.1996. (Annexure-A/13 to the present writ petition) b) No. 1/20/85-5/SE (Pt-1) dated 22nd July, 1996 (Annexure-A/14 to the present writ petition) Being aggrieved the writ Petitioners filed the present writ petition or challenging the said orders of the Government of Manipur dated 2.7.1996 and 22.7.1996. 11. Private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 had filed Affidavit-in-opposition, additional Affidavit-in-opposition and mise application No. 166 of 1998 in the present writ petition. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 6 had produced a copy of their initial appointment orders dated 15.6.1995 and in respect of Respondent No. 5 initial appointment order dated 10.12.1992 as Lecturer in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong. The Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 stated that since they were appointed as Lecturers in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong under the said initial appointment orders they had been appointed into service of the Government of Manipur under the impugned order dated 2.7.1996 and 22.7.1996 after the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong had been taken over by the Government of Manipur under the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 16.3.1996. 12. In reply to the said averments of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, writ Petitioners produced a copy of the application dated 4.6.1996 filed by the Respondent No. 6, Md. Abdul Latif to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur for considering his case for appointment as Lecturers in the Statistics in the Government College, i.e. Tamenglong College alleging that he had served as Lecturer in the Statistics in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong for 12 (twelve) years. Abdul Latif to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur for considering his case for appointment as Lecturers in the Statistics in the Government College, i.e. Tamenglong College alleging that he had served as Lecturer in the Statistics in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong for 12 (twelve) years. Basing on the said application of the Respondent No. 6, Md. Abdul Latif dated 4.6.1996, writ Petitioners stated that Respondent No. 6, Md. Abdul Latif who had allegedly served for twelve years in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong cannot be appointed under the said initial appointment order dated 15.6.1995 produced by the Respondent No. 6 as his initial appointment and as such, assertion of Respondent No. 6 regarding his initial appointment and his alleged twelve years service in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong are false. Similarly, writ Petitioners also produced a copy of application dated 4.6.1996 filed by Respondent No. 4 Smt. N. Bimorani Devi to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur for considering her case for appointment as Lecturer in the Economics as long time sufferer in the Government College, i.e. Tamenglong alleging that she had served for 12 (twelve) years in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong. In reply to that, writ Petitioners produced a copy of certificate for the Respondent No. 4 for passing M.A. Examination in Economics only in the year, 1993. As such, the writ Petitioners stated that private Respondent No. 4, Smt. N. Bimorani Devi who had passed M.A. Examination in the year 1993 cannot serve twelve years as Lecturer in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong before 4.6.1996. Again the writ Petitioners stated that the private Respondent No. 4, Smt. N. Bimorani Devi who alleged to have served twelve years as Lecturer in Economics in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong, according to her application dated 4.6.1992 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur cannot be appointed for the first time under the said initial appointment order dated 15.6.1995 produced by her before this Court. Similarly, the writ Petitioners also produced a copy of DO Letter dated 6.6.1996 of the Ex-Finance Minister, Manipur to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur stating that Respondent No. 5, Mr. L. Rameshwar Singh had been appointed as Lecturer the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong under the appointment letter being No. 1/TC/2/87 dated 14.3.1989. Similarly, the writ Petitioners also produced a copy of DO Letter dated 6.6.1996 of the Ex-Finance Minister, Manipur to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Manipur stating that Respondent No. 5, Mr. L. Rameshwar Singh had been appointed as Lecturer the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong under the appointment letter being No. 1/TC/2/87 dated 14.3.1989. Basing on the said DO letter dated 6.6.1996 the Petitioner stated that the Respondent No. 5 cannot claim that he had been appointed under the said initial appointment order dated 10.12.1992 produced by Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the present writ petition. The Petitioners also filed the Affidavit sworn by the then Chairman of the Governing Body of Tamenglong College, Mr. Daisin Pamei dated 30.7.1998 that private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were not included in the list of teaching staff of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong sent to the Government for appointment into service of the Government of Manipur after the college had been taken over by the Government under the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 16.3.1996. 13. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in their Affidavit in opposition, additional Affidavit in opposition and misc application stated that the claim of the writ Petitioners that they had been appointed for the first time under the order of Shri Daisin Pamei, Chairman, Governing Body of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong dated 10.5.1995 are not correct and also that the order dated 10.5.1995 are not correct and also that the order dated 10.5.1995 is manufactured one in collusion with Shri Daisin Pamei, Chairman, Governing Body. In support of their case, the private Respondents also produced other appointment orders issued by Shri Daisin Pamei, Chairman, Governing Body of the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong dated 23.7.1992 for appointing Petitioner No. 2, Shri Thangjam Naor Singh as Lecturer in the Manipuri in the Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong and another order signed by Mr. Daisin Pamei, Chairman, GB dated 10.5.1994 for appointing Petitioner No. 1 as Lecturer in Economics in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong. 14. From the above discussion, it appears that there is a serious disputed question of fact about the correct dates of the initial appointment orders of the writ Petitioners as well as those of private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as Lecturers in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong. 14. From the above discussion, it appears that there is a serious disputed question of fact about the correct dates of the initial appointment orders of the writ Petitioners as well as those of private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as Lecturers in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong. However, it can be inferred that both the parties i.e. Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are not putting up their cases clearly and there are suppression of material facts by both the writ Petitioners and private Respondents. It is very unfortunate. 15. By following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra), J.H. Patel v. Subhan Khan (supra), and Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. M/s GAR Rerolling Mills and Anr. (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the writ Petitioners are not entitled to get the relief sought for in the present writ petition. Further, because of the serious disputed question of facts about the initial appointments of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 they cannot be let scot-free. 16. We may here recall the decision of the Apex Court in Chairman Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and Ors. v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and Anr. (1997) 7 SCC 298 that where the disputed question of fact involved, matter ought not to be entertained under Article 226 and also the decision of the Apex Court in DLF Housing Pvt. Ltd. (1976) 3 SCC 160 that where basic facts are disputed and complicated question of fact or law depending on the evidence are involved, writ court is not the proper forum for seeking relief. 17. Taking the overall consideration of the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case and also the manner in which the writ Petitioners and private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 put up their case by concealing the material facts, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is not only deserved dismissal but also a direction to the State Government to refer the cases of the present Petitioners and the private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to the S.P. Vigilance, Manipur to find out the person responsible for issuing different initial appointment orders of the Petitioners and private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to the S.P. Vigilance, Manipur to find out the person responsible for issuing different initial appointment orders of the Petitioners and private Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and as to whether they had served or not in the erstwhile Government Aided Tamenglong College, Tamenglong at the time of taking over by the Government of Manipur under the said order dated 16.3.1996 and necessary follow up steps if necessary by registering Criminal case against the persons concerned. Writ petition is dismissed with the directions indicated above. Parties are to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed