Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 347 (CAL)

Partha Pratim Ghosh v. Sudip Dutta

2009-05-04

D.P.SENGUPTA, DEBASISH KAR GUPTA

body2009
Judgment : GUPTA, J. (1) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated April 13, 2006 passed in W.P. N.11555(W) of 2005. By virtue of the above judgment the learned Single Judge allowed the above writ application cancelling the appointment of the appellant/respondent No.4 in the post of Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity in the District of Dakshin Dinajpur. By the impugned judgment the Sub-divisional Officer and the Chairman of Selection Committee of Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur was also directed to issue necessary letter of appointment to the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in respect of the post under reference. (2) The backdrop of this case as revealed from the materials on record are stated below: The appellant and the respondent No. 1 enrolled their names in the Balurghat Employment Exchange, District Dakshin Dinajpur in the year 1997. On the strength of the above enrolment the respondent No. 1 got a call letter in the year 2001 to participate in the selection process for appointment of an Assistant Teacher Daulpara Free Primary School, Post Office Ramchandrapur, Balurghat, District Dakshin Dinajpur. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner participated in that selecti.on process. (3) In or about January 2004 the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner as also the appellant got call letters from the above employment exchange to participate in the selection process for appointment of a Clark-cum- Typist(Group-C) under Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity, Dakshin Dinajpur. (4) Before participating in that selection process, the respondent No. 1 was selected for appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher in Daulpara Free Primary school, District Dakshin Dinajpur in the month of February 2004. It was an outcome of the first call letter which he had received from the concerned employment exchange in the year 2001. The respondent No. 1 joined the said school. (5) After joining in the post of Assistant Teacher of the aforesaid school, the respondent No.1 submitted a communication dated February 20, 2004 to the Chairman, District Primary Council, Dakshin Dinajpur with a prayer for allowing him to retain his employment exchange card instead of surrendering the same to the concerned employment exchange for the purpose of enabling him to participate in the selection process for appointment of Clerk-cum- Typist(Group-C) under Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur. The Chairman District Primary School issued a certificate dated March 3, 2005 to the effect that no action had been taken by his office for surrendering the employment exchange card of the respondent No.1 to the concerned employment exchange after his appointment as an Assistant Teacher of Daulpara Free Primary School, District Dakshin Dinajpur. (6) On March 6, 2005 the appellant as also the respondent No.1 took part in the interview, amongst other eligible candidates, in connection with the selection process of appointment as Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur. The name of the respondent No. 1 appeared on top of the panel prepared in connection with the above selection process. (7) On March 7, 2005 the appellant submitted a letter of complain to the Sabhadhipati, Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur informing him that the respondent No.1 had participated in the aforesaid selection process on receipt of a call from the concerned employment exchange and by producing his employment exchange card before the selection committee suppressing the fact of his appointment as an Assistant Teacher of Dakshin Dinajpur Free Primary School, District Dakshin Dinajpur. Copies of the above letter of complain were also sent to the Sub-divisional Officer, Balurghat sub-division, District Dakshin Dinajpur and the Block Development Officer and Executive Officer of Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur. (8) Thereafter, in reply to a communication dated April 1, 2005 the employment officer, Directorate of Employment informed the Employment Officer-in-charge, District Employment Exchange, Balurghat by a communication dated May 2,2005 that the name of the respondent No.1 should not be considered for selection or appointment in the post of Clerk-cum-Typists under Balurghat Block Development and Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur due to his appointment as Primary Teacher under the District Primary School Council, Dakshin Dinajpur prior to his participation in the above selection process. By the above communication the Employment Officer-in-Charge, District Employment Exchange Balurghat was also directed to send a letter by way of cancellation advice to the Block Development Officer, Balurghat disclosing the cause for such cancellation therein. The above Employment Officer-in-Charge was also directed to take necessary action for seizure of Employment Exchange Card of the respondent No. 1. By the above communication the Employment Officer-in-Charge, District Employment Exchange Balurghat was also directed to send a letter by way of cancellation advice to the Block Development Officer, Balurghat disclosing the cause for such cancellation therein. The above Employment Officer-in-Charge was also directed to take necessary action for seizure of Employment Exchange Card of the respondent No. 1. (9) Block Level Selection Committee of Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity adopted a resolution in its meeting dated May 30,2005 for recommending the name of the appellant for appointment in the above post of Clerk-cum-Typist (Group-C) under Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur. On receipt of the above recommendation, the Block Development Officer and Ex-officio Executive Officer Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur issued a letter of appointment dated May 30,2005 in favour of the appellant in respect of the above post of Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur. (10) The respondent No. 1 filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution being W.P. No. 11555(W) of 2005, which gives raise to this appeal, with a prayer for setting aside the appointment of the appellant in the above post of Clerk-cum-Typist (Group-C) under Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur. The above writ application was allowed on April 13, 2006 cancelling the appointment of the appellant as also directing the Sub-divisional Officer and Ex-officio Chairman of the Selection Committee of Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur to issue letter of appointment in favour of the respondent No. 1 for the aforesaid post of Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) within a period of four weeks from the date of delivery of that judgment. (11) The appellant preferred the instant appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order dated April 13, 2006 passed in W.P. No. 11555(W) of 2005. An application of stay of operation of the impugned order dated April 25, 2006 was also filed on April 28, 2006 in connection therewith. (12) The application for stay of operation of the impugned judgment was taken up on June 15, 2006 and the appellant was directed to explain to the registry as to how two respondents, who were not parties in the writ petition, had been added as parties in the appeal. (12) The application for stay of operation of the impugned judgment was taken up on June 15, 2006 and the appellant was directed to explain to the registry as to how two respondents, who were not parties in the writ petition, had been added as parties in the appeal. It is necessary to point out here that the Director of Employment, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal and the Chairman, District Primary School Council, Dakshin Dinajpur were made party respondent Nos. 3 and 7 respectively in the appeal. (13) The Executive Officer Dakshin Dinajpur Zila Parisad by an order dated June 21, 2006 cancelled the order of appointment of the appellant as also appointed the respondent No. 1 to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist (Group-C) undar the Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity in compliance of the order dated April 13,2006 passed in W.P. No.11555(W) of 2005. The Executive Officer Dakshin Dinajpur Zila Parisad also issued a corrigendum dated July 7, 2006 replacing the name of the appellant in the letter of appointment in question by that of the respondent No. 1. (14) The Chairman, District Primary School Dakshin Dinajpur by an order issued under office memorandum dated June 26, 2006 accepted the resignation of the respondent No.1 from the post,of Assistant Teacher Daulpara Free Primary School under Tapan West Circle, Balurghat, District Dakshin Dinajpur. The respondent No.1 joined as Clerk-cum-Typist in the office of the Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity on June 27, 2006. (15) Subsequently, by order dated September 7, 2006 passed by the Court, the names of the respondent Nos. 3 and 7, namely the Director of Employment Exchange, Labour Department, Government of West Bengal and the Chairman District Primary School Council, Dakshin Dinajpur respectively, were expunged from this appeal on an oral prayer made on behalf of the appellant. By further order dated November 13, 2006 this appeal was admitted with a direction for filing paper books as also rejecting prayer for stay of operation of the impugned order dated April 13,2006 passed in W.P. No.11555 (W) of 2005 considering the fact that the above order had been implemented. The above order dated November 13, 2006 is quoted below: "1. Considering the questions involved, the appeal is admitted. 2. Paper books be prepared and filed within six weeks from today. Thereafter there shall be liberty to mention. 3. The above order dated November 13, 2006 is quoted below: "1. Considering the questions involved, the appeal is admitted. 2. Paper books be prepared and filed within six weeks from today. Thereafter there shall be liberty to mention. 3. Since the order has already been implemented, there is no question of slay. The stay application is dispose of. (V. S. Sirpurkar, C. J) (Patherya, J.)" (16) It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the impugned Judgment dated April 13, 2006 cannot be sustained in law. In view of the provisions of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules), an employer should furnish to the concerned employment exchange, the result of selection within fifteen days from the date of selection. Relying upon a departmental circular bearing No. 3E-137/3/86/20021-90A dated June 18, 1987 it is further submitted that on getting an appointment on the basis of sponsoring of the name from the employment exchange, the respondent No. 1 was under obligation tasurrender his employment exchange card to the concerned employment exchange. But in the instant case the respondent No. 1 did not surrender his employment exchange card to the employer after getting appointment in the Daulpara Free Primary School as an Assistant Teacher. Therefore, he was not entitled to participate in the selection process for appointment of Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under reference. Therefore, Learned Single Judge was in error in interfering with the order dated May 30, 2005 passed by the Block Development Officer and Ex-officio Executive Officer, Balurghat Panchayat Samiti for appointment of the appellant to the above post of Clark-cum-Typist(Group-C). (17) According to the appellant the Chairman Primary School Council was not the authority to allow the respondent No. 1 to retain his Employment Exchange card even after getting the employment. (18) With regard to the cancellation of the order of appointment dated May 30, 2005 by the Executive Officer, Dakshin Dinajpur Zila Parisad by order dated June 21, 2006 in compliance with the order dated April 13,2006 passed in W.P. No. 11555(W) of 2005, it is submitted before us that the same was passed after preferring the instant appeal on April 25, 2006. Similarly, the incidents of resignation of the respondent No.1 from the post of Assistant Teacher, Daulpara Free Primary School, District Dakshin Dinajpur on June 26, 2006 and his joining in the post of Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under reference on June 27, 2006 also took place after filing of the instant appeal. According to the appellant, those events cannot be taken into consideration in deciding the issues which are involved in this appeal. (19) Regarding the pendency of a defective appeal and removal of those defects after occurrence of three incidents, namely (i) cancellation of appointment of the appellant in the post of Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under reference appointing the respondent No. 1 in that post (ii) the acceptance of resignation of the respondent No. 1 from the post of Assistant Teacher of Daulpara Free Primary School, District Dakshin Dinajpur, and (iii) his joining in the post of Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under reference, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that those instance are subject to the final outcome of this appeal. And mis-description of parties can be amended any point of time having no bearing on the pendency of the appeal from the date of its initial filing. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that there is no provision for admission of a mandamus appeal and the period of pendency of a mandamus appeal has to be counted from the date of its filing ignoring the date of removal of its defect. (20) So far as the claim for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist (Group-C) under reference is concerned. It is also submitted on behalf of the appellant that after getting the appointment in the post of Clerk- cum-Typist(Group-C) under reference he also surrendered his employment exchange card to the concerned employment exchange. But the respondent No. 1 -suppressed the fact of his appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher of Daulpara Free Primary School and retained his employment exchange card without authority of law for participating in the selection process of Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under reference. Therefore, equity does not permit the respondent No.1 to sustain a claim in respect of the post of Clerk-cum- Typist(Group-C) under Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity. Therefore, equity does not permit the respondent No.1 to sustain a claim in respect of the post of Clerk-cum- Typist(Group-C) under Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity. (21) According to the appellant due to non-joinder of the selecting authority of the second selection process in the writ application, there was no scope to ascertain the truthfulness of the statement of the respondent No.1 that he had disclosed before the selection committee the fact of his appointment as an Assistant Teacher in the school under reference. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the respondent No. 1 was unemployed was not correct. (22) Relying upon the decision of Ispat Industries v. Comr. Of Customs, reported in (2006)12 SCC 583 , it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the instructions contained in departmental circular dated June 18,1987 were supplementary to the statutory provisions and the same did not supplant any statutory provisions. Therefore, in absence of statutory provisions those were to be complied with. Relying upon the decision of Kurapati Venkata Malluyya v. Thondepu Ramaswami and Co., reported in AIR 1964 SC 818 it is submitted oh behalf of the appellant that mis-description of parties could be amended at any point of time and after removal of the defects of misdescription of parties, this appeal is to be treated as pending from the date of its filing. Relying upon the decisions of Union of india v. G. R. Prabhavalkar, reported in (1973)4 SCC 183 , Siddalingamma v. Mamtha Shenoy, reported in (2001)8 SCC 561 ; Union of India v. Narender Singh, reported in (2005)6 SCC 106 : (2005)2 WBLR (SC) 471, Vidyawati Gupta v. Bhakti Hah Nayak, reported in (2006)2 SCC 777 : (2006)1 WBLR (SC) 931 and Union of India v. Ram Kumar Thakur reported in (2009)1 SCC 122 it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that once the defect of the above appeal was removed the same should have been treated as pending from the date of its filing applying the doctrine of relation back and in the absence of clear reasoning. Relying upon the decision of Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab Ntional Bank, reported in (2007)2 SCC 230, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that when legal right and equity are pitted against each other the law should prevail. Relying upon the decision of Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab Ntional Bank, reported in (2007)2 SCC 230, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that when legal right and equity are pitted against each other the law should prevail. Relying upon the decisions of Sant Ram Sharrna v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1910 , Smt. Shefali Sarkar v. The Divisional Engineer, reported in (1981)1 Cal LJ 472, State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao(Dr), reported in (1993)2 SCC 567 , Gurdeep Singh v. State of j and K, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2638 , Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Girdharilal Yadav, reported in (2004)6 SCC 325, State of A.P v. T. Suryachandra .Rao, reported in (2005)6 SCC 149 : (2005)2 WBLR (SC) 460; A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., reported in (2007)4 SCC 221 , State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, reported in (2008)1 SCC 456 and State of Manipur v. Token Sing, reported in (2007)5 SCC 65 it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the respondent No. 1 did not appear before the selection committee with clear hands and the disclosure of the fact of his appointment being a disputed questions of fact, he deserved no relief from the writ Court. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, the decision of Excise Supdt. v. K. B, N. Visweshwara Rao, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 216 was not applicable in the instant case. (23) On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that at the time of sponsoring the name of the respondent No. 1 for participating in the selection process of appointing Clerk-cum-Typist, the petitioner had not been appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher in Daulpara Free Primary School, District Dakshin Dinajpur. So, the concerned employment exchange committed no error in issuing call letter in favour of the respondent No. 1 in respect of the above selection process. (24) It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 read with the Employment exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Rules, 1960 cast an obligation upon the employer to furnish to the concerned employment exchange the results of selection within 15 days from the date of selection. (24) It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 read with the Employment exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Rules, 1960 cast an obligation upon the employer to furnish to the concerned employment exchange the results of selection within 15 days from the date of selection. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 being an appointee did not commit any error by non-surrendering his Employment Exchange Card to the concerned employment exchange. (25) It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the departmental circular dated June 18,1987 did not confer any legally enforceable right upon the appellant to pray for any relief before Court of law for non-compliance of instructions of above departmental circular. (26) Drawing our attention towards the statements made in the writ application it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the fact of his appointment as Assistant Teacher of Daulpara Free Primary School was brought to the knowledge to the selection committee. Therefore, no fraud was committed by him as alleged. (27) Relying upon the decision of G. J. Fernandez v. State of Mysore, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1753 , Rabindra Nath Mahanta v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in (2005)3 Cal HN 337 : (2005)2 WBLR (Cal) 266; Manik Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in (2007)2 Cal HN 761 : (2007)2 WBLR (Cal) 820, it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that memorandum dated June 18, 1987 was a departmental circular for guidance of the officers and employees of the department concerned. The same does not confer any legal enforceable right upon anybody. Relying upon the decision of S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar, reported in (2004)7 SCC 166 , it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that in view of the disclosure of the fact of first appointment before the selection committee by the respondent No. 1 in the second selection process no material fact was suppressed. Relying upon the decision of the K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao (supra) it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the eligible candidates were entitled to appear before the selection committee. Relying upon the decision of the K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao (supra) it is submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the eligible candidates were entitled to appear before the selection committee. Therefore, even the name of the respondent No.1 was not sponsored by the concerned employment exchange he was entitled to appear in the selection process. As such his selection was valid in the eye of law. (28) We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties at length and we have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly the respondent No.1 got the call letter from the concerned Employment Exchange for participating in the second selection process, namely the selection process for appointment of Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under the Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity, District Dakshin Dinajpur in or about January 2004. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.1 got an appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher in Daulpafa Free Primary School District Dakshin Dinajpur in the month of February 2004. Therefore, there was no irregularity at the instance of the concerned Employment Exchange in sponsoring the name of the respondent No. 1 for participating in the second selection process. (29) Regarding the furnishing of information of appointing the respondent No. 1 as an Assistant Teacher in Daulpara Free Primary School, District Dakshin Dinajpur to the concerned Employment Exchange, we find that Sub-rule(3) of Rule 5 of the said Rules cast an obligation upon the employer only. So the respondent No. 1 was not under any statutory obligation to furnish the information of his above appointment to the concerned Employment Exchange. Regarding the instruction for surrendering the Employment Exchange Card on the basis of the instructions contained in circular bearing No.3E-137/3/86/ 20021-90A dated June 18, 1987 we find that the above circular was a mere guideline having no statutory force. The law is well settled that a mere non- statutory guideline does not confer any legal enforceable right upon anybody. In this regard the relevant portions of the decision of J. R. Raghupathy v. State of A. P. reported in AIR 1988 SC 1681 are quoted below : "30. The law is well settled that a mere non- statutory guideline does not confer any legal enforceable right upon anybody. In this regard the relevant portions of the decision of J. R. Raghupathy v. State of A. P. reported in AIR 1988 SC 1681 are quoted below : "30. We find it rather difficult to sustain the Judgment of the High Court in some of the cases where it has interfered with the location of Mandal Headquarters and quashed the impugned notifications on the ground that the Government acted in breach of the guidelines in that one place or the other was more centrally located or that location at the other place would promote general public convenience, or that the headquarters should be fixed at a particular place with a view to develop the area surrounded by it. The location of headquarters by the Government by the issue of the final notification under sub-s(5) of S.3 of the Act was on a consideration by the Cabinet Sub-Committed of the proposals submitted by the Collectors concerned and the objections and suggestions received from the local authorities like the gram panchayats and the general public. Even assuming that the Government while accepting the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directed that the Mandal Headquarters should be at place X rather than place Y as recommended by the Collector concerned in a particular case., the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners." (Emphasis supplied) (30) That apart, in view of the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India equal opportunity for consideration in the matter of public employment could not be denied to the respondent No. 1. We find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the settled principles of law as decided in the matter of K. B. N Veswashwara Rao (supra) strengthened the possession of the respondent No. 1 to take part in the selection process of appointing Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under reference. We find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the settled principles of law as decided in the matter of K. B. N Veswashwara Rao (supra) strengthened the possession of the respondent No. 1 to take part in the selection process of appointing Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under reference. In view of above observations we find that the question of disclosure of the fact of getting appointment in the post of Assistant Teacher of Daulpara Free Primary School before the Selection Committee of the second selection process by the respondent No. 1 had no bearing on the issue of validity of the candidature of respondent No. 1. (31) We further find from the materials on record that the selection of the respondent No. 1 for the post of Clerk-cum-Typist(Group-C) under reference was cancelled on the sole ground as discussed in the preceding paragraph hereinabove. The above selection process was not under challenge on any other ground. Since we find that the above ground for cancellation of selection of the respondent No. 1 could not be sustained in law the impugned order does not require interference on that ground. (32) We find that the next ground of challenge is the appointment of the respondent No. 1 during the pendency of this appeal has no force in the eye of law after deciding the selection of the respondent No. 1 as legally valid one. (33) That apart we find from the statements made in paragraph 5 of the application being CAN No.7752 of 2007, which has been filed by the respondent No. 1 /writ petitioner, that the appellant drew his service benefits including pay and allowance arising out of his appointment in the post of Clerk-cum- Typist(Group-C) under Balurghat Development Block and Balurghat Panchayat Samity unconditionally and without reservation. Be that as it may, in view of our conclusion that the selection of respondent No. 1 was legally valid, it has become an academic issue as to whether the conduct of the appellant inhibits him from pressing this appeal. (34) We do not find that the decision of Ispat Industries (supra) helps the case of the appellant in any way. Because in the decision the hierarchy of laws in legal system according to the theory of the element positivist jurist kelsen (the pure theory of laws) was discussed. (34) We do not find that the decision of Ispat Industries (supra) helps the case of the appellant in any way. Because in the decision the hierarchy of laws in legal system according to the theory of the element positivist jurist kelsen (the pure theory of laws) was discussed. The question of legally enforceable right on the basis of the administrative orders or executive instructions without any statutory backing was not decided in that case. In the decisions of Kurapati Venkata Malluyya (supra), G. R. Prabhavalkar (supra), Siddalingamma (supra), Narender Singh (supra), Vidawati Gupta (supra) consequence removal of defects in an appeal in considering the question of pendency of that appeal on the date of its filing was decided. Since we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment the above issue has become an academic issue and no relief can be granted to the appellant on the basis of that law settled in those cases. For the same reason we do not find that the appellant deserves any relief from out of this appeal on the basis of the settled principles of law as decided in the matter of Raghunath Raj Bareja (supra) because we have already decided that the respondent No. 1 was legally entitled to get the appointment in the post of Clerk-cum-Typist under reference. The Law settled in the matter of Sant Ram Sharma (supra), Smt. Shefali Sarkar (supra), Budhikota Subbarao (Dr), Gurdeep Singh (supra), Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra), T. Suryachandra Rao (supra), A. V. Papayya Sastry (supra), Sanjay Kumar Pathak (supra), Token Singh (supra), has no manner of application in this appeal because we have not accepted the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the respondent No. 1 did not appear before the Selection Committee in respect of the second selection process with clean hands. It has already been discussed hereinabove that the decision of K. B. N. Visweshwara Rao (supra) is applicable in this case. Therefore, we do not.find any substance on the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the above decision has no manner of application in this case. In view of the above discussions and observations made hereinabove, this appeal fails the applications relating to the above appeal are disposed of accordingly. (35) There will be, however, no order as to costs. In view of the above discussions and observations made hereinabove, this appeal fails the applications relating to the above appeal are disposed of accordingly. (35) There will be, however, no order as to costs. (36) Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.