Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. During pendency of W.P. No.24942 of 2003, it is brought to our notice that connected Original Application No.2564 of 2001, which was renumbered as W.P. No.3462 of 2007, had come to this Court on abolition of the Tribunal. Hence the said writ petition is also listed along with W.P. No.24942 of 2003. 3. On verification of record, we find that O.A. No.2564 of 2001 was filed by the very same petitioner/Dr. P. Sudhakar, claiming the relief of appointment on temporary basis as Assistant Surgeon and when such original application was pending, the very same petitioner filed O.A. No.441 of 2002 through another counsel without disclosing the fact that for the very same relief, he had already filed O.A. No.2564 of 2001. Thereafter, O.A. No.441 of 2002 was allowed and the same is being challenged by the State Government in W.P. No.24942 of 2003. 4. The aforesaid narration clearly indicates that the applicant before the Tribunal has abused the process of law by filing subsequent O.A. No.441 of 2002, suppressing the pendency of earlier O.A. No.2564 of 2001 regarding the very same relief. 5. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in UDYAMI EVAM KHADI GRAMODYOG WELFARE SANSTHA v. STATE OF U.P. (2007 AIR SCW 7656), wherein the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "15. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law." 6. In view of the above decision, on account of the conduct of the applicant in not coming to Court with clean hands, O.A. No.441 of 2002 was liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone. .7. Apart from the above, it appears that the Tribunal in O.A. No.271 of 2002 filed by Dr. Stalin Vijaykumar had negatived a similar contention, by observing as follows:- ."The applicant seems to have filed this application aggrieved with the notification made by the Government wherein they have called for appointment of 550 Civil Assistant Surgeons under rule 10(a)(1) by creating temporary posts. Stalin Vijaykumar had negatived a similar contention, by observing as follows:- ."The applicant seems to have filed this application aggrieved with the notification made by the Government wherein they have called for appointment of 550 Civil Assistant Surgeons under rule 10(a)(1) by creating temporary posts. It is also made clear by the Government that all these 550 posts will be filled up by the Government by calling for a list from the Professional Employment Exchange, Chennai and the list should be prepared according to the seniority maintained by the Employment Exchange subject to the rule of reservation. So far as this selection under rule 10(a)(1) is concerned the applicant cannot make use of his inclusion in the reserve list of the selected candidates by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. If the applicant has got himself registered in the Employment Exchange and if he has attained sufficient seniority no doubt he will also be called and given postings. But just because his name is included in the reserve list in the selection done in 1999 by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission he cannot be heard to contend that he must be called and given postings for the now notified vacancies." 8. However, the Tribunal, without taking into account its own earlier order in similar case, has passed the subsequent judgment dated 8th July, 2002 in O.A. No.441 of 2002. On this ground also, the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.441 of 2002 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, W.P. No.24942 of 2003 filed by the State against the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.441 of 2002 is allowed and the order passed in O.A. No.441 of 2002 is set aside. .9. The next question is regarding the fate of the earlier O.A. No.2564 of 2001 now renumbered as W.P. No.3462 of 2007 which has been now transferred to this Court on the abolition of the Tribunal. The unclean conduct of the applicant/petitioner in filing a subsequent application also stands a stumbling block for considering the very same relief. Accordingly, the said writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, W.P. No.24942 of 2003 is allowed and W.P. No.3462 of 2007 is dismissed. No costs.