ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In CWJC No. 2588 of 2012, the petitioner Amarnath Keshari has assailed the impugned order passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Araria (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) dated 29.01.2012 passed in case No. 18 of 2009, whereas in the connected CWJC No. 14810 of 2013 the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha has sought a direction for his appointment on the basis of the said order of the Tribunal which has been impugned by the petitioner Amarnath Keshari in CWJC No. 2588 of 2012. 3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Amarnath Keshari, has submitted that the order of the Tribunal suffers from two apparent errors, namely that it did not decide the main question as with regard to the complaint of the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha being not maintainable before the Tribunal in view of rejection of his earlier complaint by the prescribed authority namely B.D.O., Farbisganj vide his order dated 20.5.2008. Secondly according to him, the Tribunal ought to have examined the records relating to selection and appointment of the post of Panchayat Teacher in question from which it could have become clear that petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha had actually made a forgery in his original application Annexure-B simply with a view to become a candidate of backward category though his case was confined to consideration amongst the general category. 4. Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha, does not dispute this fact that Narendra Kumar Jha had initially moved against the selection and appointment of the petitioner Amarnath Keshari before the then prescribed authority namely, the Block Development Officer in the year 2008, but then, he was never made aware of the final disposal of such complaint by the Block Development Officer Forbesganj inasmuch as he was never given any opportunity of hearing by the aforesaid prescribed authority Mr. Pramod Mishra has also explained that the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha in absence of his original application and having a custody only its photocopy cannot be held guilty committing any forgery inasmuch as such interpolation in the original application of Narendra Kumar Jha was made by Mukhia and Panchayat Secretary in order to appoint petitioner Amarnath Kesari who had admittedly lesser marks than petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha. 5. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the remedy of writ jurisdiction is for only such persons who would approach this Court with clean hands. Once this Court has found that petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha had tried to produce a truncated forged document by filing his supplementary counter affidavit, it will have no difficulty in holding that Narendra Kumar Jha is not a person fit to be given any relief in writ jurisdiction. In this regard, it has to be kept in mind that when such serious things came to the notice of this Court, repeated opportunities were given to Narendra Kumar Jha, as would be evident from the order of this Court dated 18.11.2013 which reads as follows: “While this case was listed today for dictating the orders, learned counsel for the respondent no. 12 has filed a supplementary counter affidavit, enclosing Annexure-R-1 purportedly to be a copy of his original application filed by respondent no. 12 seeking appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The said affidavit in Paragraph 5 contains a specific declaration of the respondent no. 12 that the Annexure is the photo/true copy of its original. This affidavit has been sworn by the respondent no. 12 on 18.11.2013 i.e. today but learned counsel for the respondent no. 12, on being asked to produce the original/photo/true copy of the Annexure-R-1, has submitted that the same may be with the respondent no. 12, who having sworn the affidavit today at 10:30 A.M., has gone back either to his home or anywhere else in Patna. Having regard to the fact that the counsel for the respondent no. 12 has failed to produce the photo or true copy of the document 5 contained Annexure-R-1, this Court would direct for the personal appearance of the respondent no. 12 day- after -tomorrow at 10:30 A.M. i.e. 20.11.2013.” 6. Thus when the case was placed on 20.11.2013 another opportunity was given by this Court to Narendra Kumar Jha to explain his stand by passing the following order: “Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.11.2013, the respondent no. 12 has appeared in person and has produced the copy of application which is said to be the copy of Annexure-R-1. Let this document filed today be kept under sealed cover. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 12 has appeared in person and has produced the copy of application which is said to be the copy of Annexure-R-1. Let this document filed today be kept under sealed cover. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 12 prays for a week’s time to file supplementary counter affidavit explaining about the genuineness of Annexure-R-1. Put up this case under the heading “Admission –III” at 3:15 P.M. at the top on 28th November 2013 when the respondent no. 12 shall again remain present in person.” 7. Today, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by Narendra Kumar Jha wherein he has given following explanations:- “3. That Annexure-R-1 is also the photo copy of the application submitted by the Respondent No. 12 and the original application (Annexure-R-1) is also not with him. 4. That it is humbly submitted that original copy of Annexure-„B? and R-1 are not with the Respondent No. - 12. 5. That it is humbly submitted that due to inadvertence in para-5 of the Counter Affidavit it was stated that Annexure is photo/true copy of its original. 6. That the statement of Para-5 of the counter affidavit has not been given deliberately and intentionally rather due to inadvertence/mistake such statement was given on behalf of the answering Respondent. 7. That the answering Respondent with folded hands begs apology for the statement given in para-5 of the Counter Affidavit. 8. That the respondent no. 12 can never think even in dream to give false statement before this Hon’ble Court or any Court of law. 9. That the respondent no. 12 again begs pardon for inconvenience caused to this Hon’ble Court.” 8. This Court therefore keeping in view of the aforesaid changed repentant attitude of Narendra Kumar Jha, who has accepted his guilt of filing a forged document in no uncertain terms and has gone to seek unconditional apology for his deliberate mistake, would close the matter, but then such person cannot be given any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution inasmuch as his such conduct of approaching this Court with unclean hands is sufficient to dismiss his writ application. Reference in this connection may usefully be made to the long line of cases of the Apex Court including in the cases of All India State Bank Officers Federation V. Union of India reported in 1990 Supp SCC 336, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy V. Government of Karnataka reported in (1991) 3 SCC 261 , Suraj Bhan V. Bharat Singh reported in 1989 Supp(2) SCC 456, Welcom Hotel Vs. State of A.P. reported in (1983)4 SCC 575, Vijay Kumar Kathuria V. State of Haryana reported in 1983 SCC 333 , State of Haryana V. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. reported in (1977) 2 SCC 431 , Agricultural & Processed Food Products V. Oswal Agro Furane reported in (1996) 4 SCC 297 , S.B. Mathur V. Muttiullah reported in 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 650, Chint Ram Ram Chand V. State of Punjab reported in (1996) 9 SCC 338 . The aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court lay down law that the petitioner who invokes extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of must come with clean hands, must not suppress any material or relevant fact from the court, must refrain from making misleading statements and from giving incorrect information to the court. Courts, for their own protection, should insist that persons invoking these extraordinary powers should not attempt, in any manner, to misuse this valuable right by obtaining orders by suppression, misinterpretation or misstatement of facts. The petitioner should not be allowed to play 'hide and seek' and to abuse the process of the court. It is not open to him to 'pick and choose' his own facts to determine in advance what is relevant and material or to omit to mention all complete and full facts and then claim that he has acted bonafide even though he has made untrue statements, omitted to inform the court of all the proceedings and the orders passed at different stages in the proceedings up to date and claim indulgence. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without mental reservations. 9. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without mental reservations. 9. As a matter of fact, petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha had also suppressed this fact in his writ petition that he had moved the Block Development Officer Forbesganj by filing the complaint at appropriate point of time when such power of hearing and deciding the complaint in terms of Rule 18 of Bihar Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rules 2006, prior to its being amended on 25.18.2008 by constituting an independent Tribunal was vested with Block Development Officer. The order of the Block Development Officer, Forbesganj dated 20.5.2008 which has been brought only by the petitioner Amarnath Keshari vide Annexure-7 would itself go to show that the prescribed authority i.e. B.D.O. having examined the records, had rejected the objection of Narendra Kumar Jha, which for sake of convenience and clarity is quoted herein-below:- ^^vfHkys[k miLFkkfir@vkifRrdrkZ ujsUæ dqekj >k firk fouksnkuan >k] xzke&cFkukgk dk vkifRr gS fd bUgksaus iapk;r f'k{kd fu;kstu 2006 esa fodykax dksfV esa vkosnu fn;k FkkA ysfdu fodykax dksfV dk iSuy esa budk uke u vkdj lkekU; dksfV ¼iq:"k½ esa budk vkWicaf/kd iSuy esa uke Ádkf'kr fd;k x;kA Á[kaM eq[;ky; ds ifjlj esa fnukad 15-4-2008 dks vk;ksftr f'kfoj esa tkapksijkUr ik;k x;k fd vkifRrdRrkZ }kjk ,slk dksbZ lk{; ÁLrqr ugha fd;k x;k] ftlls Li"V gks fd buds }kjk fodykaxrk dk Áek.k i= vkosnu i= ds lkFk lefiZr fd;k x;k gksA Jh ujsUæ dqekj >k }kjk fodykaxrk dk Áek.k i= vkosnu i= ds lkFk lefiZr ugha jgus ds dkj.k budk uke lkekU; dksfV ¼iq:"k½ esa vkWicaf/kd iSuy esa Ádkf'kr fd;k x;kA vr% buds }kjk fodykaxrk Áek.k i= ÁLrqr ugha fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i vkifRrdrkZ dj vkifRr [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA ys[kkfir gŒ@& Qkjfclxat gŒ@& vLi"V 20-5-2008 ÁŒfoŒinkŒ QkjfclxatA Kkikad 855@fnukad 20-5-2008A** 10. Such order of Block Development Officer, Forbesganj dated 20.05.2008, being that of the prescribed authority, the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha could not have moved again the Tribunal without assailing the aforesaid order before the competent court of law/forum. It has to be also kept in mind that Narendra Kumar Jha had filed a writ application, CWJC No. 10962 of 2008, but even in that writ application, he did not assail the aforementioned order dated 20.05.2008 and had sought only a direction for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher in view of his name figuring in the selection list (panel). Thus, when this Court was not apprised by Narendra Kumar Jha moving of the forum, the Block Development Officer, where his case was already adjudicated on 20.05.2008, the consequential order passed on 25.09.2009 giving liberty to Narendra Kumar Jha to approach the Tribunal in terms of the amended rules with effect from 9 25.10.2008 will be of no avail and in fact would also not bind the petitioner Amarnath Kesari who was not heard by this Court while passing of the aforesaid order dated 25.9.2009 even though he had already been appointed as Panchayat Teacher on 28.11.2007. In fact, the Tribunal was itself required to look into this aspect but unfortunately even when this fact was specifically brought to the notice of the Tribunal by Amarnath Kesari that there was already an order of the Block Development Officer, it had failed to decide the same as would be evidenced from the finding of the Tribunal in the impugned order relevant portion whereof reads as follows: ^^fnukad & 29-01-2012 vafre vkns'k---------------------- Jh ujsUæ dqekj >k }kjk nk;j ;kfpdk esa fnukad 25-07-2009 dks vkns'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd buds vihy nk;j djus ij 30 fnuksa ds vanj Ákf/kdkj fu.kZ; nsaA Jh >k us 24-08-2009 dks vH;kosnu nk;j fd;kA blh lanHkZ esa eqf[k;k@iapk;r lfpo ,oa vkjksih f'k{kd Jh vejukFk ds'kjh dks lwfpr dj dkj.k i`PNk rFkk lk{; dh ekax dh xbZA ckj&ckj funs'k nsus ds ckotwn rhuksa mifLFkr ugha gq,] pwafd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dk vkns'k ds vkyksd es fu.kZ; ,d ekg ds vanj nsuk FkkA Jh ds'kjh ds fo:} vkjksi Áekf.kr ik;s tkus ij c[kkZLrxh dk vkns'k fn;k tk ldrk Fkk] ijarq Ákd`frd U;k; dks /;ku esa j[kdj cxSj Li"Vhdj.k ÁkIr fd;s vkns'k nsuk mfpr ugha FkkA Qyr% tkap dj ¼'kr Áfr'kr Jh >k dk vkjksi Áekf.kr ik;s tkus ij½ Jh ds'kjh dh lsok ,oa osru ij vxys vkns'k rd ds fy, jksd yxk fn;k x;kA jksd yxk;s tkus ij mUgksaus dkj.k i`PNk lefiZr fd;kA eqf[k;k@iapk;r lfpo ,oa vkjksih f'k{kd Jh vejukFk ds'kjh }kjk lefiZr dkj.k i`PNk dh leh{kk dh xbZA tks fuEu Ádkj gS %& ¼d½ eqf[k;k th us viuh vLoLFkrk ds ckjs esa tkudkjh nsrs gq, le; dh ekax dhA ckn esa Á[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh Qkjfclxat }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa nk;j lefiZr ,d Áfr nh ftlesa dgk x;k gS fd ujsUæ dqekj >k dk vkosnu lgh ugha Fkk vkSj fodykaxrk Áek.k i= mUgksaus le; ij ugha fn;k blfy, fu;qfDr ugha dh xbZA tcfd ujsUæ dqekj >k ds }kjk fu;kstu gsrq fn;s x;s vkosnu dh ÁkfIr jlhn dh Nk;kÁfr miyC/k djk;k x;k gS ftlesa fodykaxrk Áek.k i= ÁkIr djkuk fy[kk x;k gSA iqu% iapk;r lfpo }kjk fnukad 08-03-2007 dks ÁkfIr jlhn dh Nk;kÁfr miyC/k djk;k x;k gS ftlesa fodykaxrk Áek.k i= ÁkIr djkuk fy[kk x;k gSA iqu% iapk;r lfpo }kjk fnukad 08-03-2007 dks ÁkfIr djk;k x;k gS] blfy, ;g dguk fd le; ij fodykaxrk Áek.k i= ugha fn;k x;k Fkk fcYdqy xyr gS tgka rd vkosnu xyr gksus dk Á'u gS eSus ewy vkosnu i= ns[kk ftlesa lkekU; dksfV esa fVd fd;k x;k gS vkSj fodykaxrk esa vfLFktu ij fVd fd;k x;k gS nksuksa dk fu'kku ,d tSlk yxrk gS ckn esa tku cw>dj vŒtŒtkŒ ,oa vŒfiŒfoŒ esa fu'kku yxk;k x;k gS nksuksa fpUg ,d tSlk yxrk gSA ,slk dj folaxrh mRiUu djus dh dksf'k'k dh xbZ dh vkosnd lkekU; ds gS ;k vkjf{kr dksfVA ysfdu uke ls ¼ujsUæ dqekj >k½ ls Li"V gS fd ;s lkekU; dksfV ds vH;FkhZ Fks] vxj eqf[k;k ,oa Á[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] Qkjfclxat ds rF; dks Lohdkj Hkh dj fy;k tk; rks vkosnu vLohd`r dj fn;k tkrk tks flQZ uke ns[kdj ugha fd;k x;k rks fQj dkmaflfyax dSls djk;k x;kA vr% eqf[k;k dk dkj.k i`PNk vkSj Á[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh dk 'kiFk i= Lohdkjus ;ksX; ugha gSA iapk;r lfpo us vius dkj.k i`PNk esa ek= bruk fy[kk gS fd muds }kjk fu;qfDr dh ÁfØ;k iwjh ugha dh xbZ Fkh nwljh iapk;r lfpo FksA mUgksaus ek= fu;kstu laca/kh dkxtkr ,oa iath Ákf/kdkj esa tek fd;k gSA Jh ujsUæ dqekj >k us vius yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks lR;kfir fd;k vkSj Li"V fd;k fd bUgksaus lkekU; dksfV esa vfLFktu fodykaxrk Áek.k i= ds lkFk vkosnu fn;k Fkk] dkmaflfyax djk;k Fkk] mUgsa es/kk vad vf/kd Fkk] fQj Hkh mudh fu;qfDr ugha dh xbZ vkSj muds txg ij Jh vejukFk ds'kjh dh fu;qfDr dh yh xbZA tcfd jksLVj fcanw ds vuqlkj 17 fcanw lkekU; vH;FkhZ ds fy, Fkk vkSj esa lkekU; vH;FkhZ ds :i esa vkosnd Fkk] esjs vkosnu esa vŒtŒtkŒ ,oa vŒfiŒfoŒ esa fu'kku yxgkj tUefrfFk esa dkV dwVdj eq>s fu;qDr ls oafpr dj fn;k x;kA eSus vkosnu ds lkFk Hkh fodykaxrk Áek.k i= fn;k Fkk vkSj ckn esa Hkh fodykaxrk Áek.k i= ekaxs tk;s tkus ij lefiZr fd;kA fQj Hkh eq>s fu;qfDr i= ugha nsdj Jh vejukFk ds'kjh dks fnukad 29-11-2007 dks fu;qDr dj fy;k x;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vkyksd esa ,d ekg ds vanj vkns'k nsuk Fkk vc yXkHkx nks o"kZ gksus tk jgk gS eq>s rqjar U;k; fn;k tk;A Jh vejukFk ds'kjh us vius Li"Vhdj.k esa fy[kk gS vkosnu lHkh okafNr Áek.k i= ds lkFk tek fd;k Fkk] vkjf{kr dksVk ¼fodykax½ es/kk lwph esa esjk uke Øekad 2 ij Fkk] Øekad 1 dh fu;qfDr vU; iapk;r esa gks xbZ] QyLo:i esjh fu;qfDr dh xbZA Jh >k ds vkosnu dks Á[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh us vkosnu dks [kkfjt dj fn;k Fkk] ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd dks ,slk Áfrosnu Hkh fn;k x;k FkkA Jh >k us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fodykaxrk Áek.k i= dh ÁkfIr jlhn xyr ÁLrqr fd;k gSa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa Jh >k }kjk nk;j ;kfpdk esa Á[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh us Jh >k ds lHkh vkjksiksa dks [kkfjt djrs gq, 'kiFk i= nk;j fd;k gSA bl Ádkj esjh fu;qfDr oS| gS vkSj gesa dk;Zjr jgus fn;k tk;A Jh ds'kjh }kjk lefiZr dkj.ki`PNk esa ;g dgha ugha dgk x;k gS fd 17 jksLVj fcanw fdl dksfV ds fy, Fkk vkSj tc Jh ds vkosnu esa fodykaxrk n'kkZ;k x;k gS vkSj ÁkfIr jlhn Hkh miyc/k gS rks fQj lkekU; in dh mudh nkosnkjh dSls lekIr gks tkrh gSA mUgksaus vius ekSf[kd c;ku esa crk;k fd 17 jksLVj lkekU; ds fy, vo'; Fkk ysfdu og lHkh oxZ ds mEehnokjksa ls Hkjus ;ksX; in FkkA bldh iqf"V esa mUgksaus dksbZ Áek.k i= ÁLrqr ugha fd;k vkSj u gh nsus dk le; fy;kA mijksDr foospuk ls ;g Li"V gS fd Jh ujsUæ dqekj >k dh nkosnkjh lgh Fkh 17 jksLVj fcUnq lkekU; dksfV ds fy, vkjf{kr Fkk vkSj Jh >k lkekU; dksfV ds fodykax vH;FkhZ FkkA mUgksaus lkekU; dksfV esa dkmaflfyax djk;k Hkh FkkA Jh ds'kjh lkekU; dksfV ds vH;FkhZ ugha Fks mudh fu;qfDr i{kikr dj fd;k x;k vxj lesfdr es/kk lwph cukbZ xbZ gksrh rks Jh ds'kjh ls Jh >k dk uke Åij gh vkrkA D;ksafd Jh >k dks 61-44 Áfr'kr vkSj Jh ds'kjh dks 56-00 Áfr'kr es/kk vad Fkk vkSj nksuksa dks lkekU; fodykaxrk ;kfu 50 Áfr'kr gS eSus Lo;a ns[kk gS nksuksa] nksuksa iSj ls fodykax gSA bl Ádkj ujsUæ dqekjh >k vkjksi 'kr&Áfr'kr lgh gS vkSj Jh vejukFk ds'kjh dks lsok esa cuk;s j[kus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA fu"d"kZ l=g ¼17½ jksLVj fcanw ij lkekU; fodykax dksfV ds vH;FkhZ dh fu;qfDr djuh FkhA Jh ujsaUæ >k lkekU; dksfV ds fodykax Fks vkSj blh dksfV ds vkosnd Hkh Fks fu;kstu lfefr us tkucw> dj tUefrfFk dkVdwV ,oa viys[ku dj rFkk fodykax dksfV esa Hkh xyr fu'kku yxkdj Jh >k dks fu;kstu ls oafpr dj fn;k tcfd nksuksa dks fodykaxrk leku jgus ds ckotwn Jh >k dks Jh ds'kjh ls 4 Áfr'kr es/kk vad vf/kd Fkk] ;kfu Jh >k dks 61-44 vkSj Jh ds'kjh dks 56 Áfr'krA vr% Jh ujsUæ dqekj >k dk vkjksi 'kr&Áfr'kr lgh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa vejukFk ds'kjh dks lsok esa cus jgus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA vr% vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd %& 1- Jh vejukFk ds'kjh dh lsok varfje vkns'k ds fuxZr frfFk ls lekIr dh tkrh gSaA 2- Jh ds'kjh dks fd;s x;s Hkqxrku dh jkf'k dh olwyh rRdkyhu eqf[k;k ,oa ia;kpr lfpo ds futh [kkrs ls djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA 3- Jh ujsUæ dqekj >k dh fu;qfDr vkns'k fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ls 15 fnuksa ds vanj dj Ákf/kdkj ,oa ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh dks lwfpr djsaA 4- rRdkyhu eqf[k;k ,oa iapk;r lfpo us Jh >k dk fu;kstu ls oafpr dj tkylkth ,oa i{kikr fd;kA fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh ds Áko/kkuksa dk mYya?ku fd;k x;k ftlls mUgksaus laoS/kkfud nkf;Ro dk fuoZgu Hkh ugha fd;k voS/k fu;qfDr djus ds nks"kh ik;s x;sA vr% muds fo:} dkuwuh dkjokbZ djus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA 5- ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] vjfj;k vius Lrj ls mijksDr vkns'k dk vuqikyu djkuk lqfuf'pr djsaxsA 6- ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k esa ekeys dk fuLrkj fd;k x;kA gŒ@& lnL; ftyk f'k{kd fu;kstu vihyh; Ákf/kdkj] vjfj;kA Kkikad 199 vjfj;k] fnukad 29-1-2012A** (Underlining for emphasis) 11. It is really shocking to this Court to note that despite the issue raising to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal having been raised by the petitioner Amarnath Keshari, the Tribunal, instead of deciding that issue, went on all other issues and did not even care to go to the root of the matter. It is well settled that the Tribunal, came into existence only with effect from 25.10.2008 and had no power to up set or decide the issue which had already been settled by the predecessor body namely, the Block Development Officer which was the earlier adjudicatory forum prior to constitution of the Tribunal. This Court will therefore have no difficulty in holding that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on the basis of which the service of the petitioner Amarnath Keshari was dislodged and sought to be terminated is itself bad both on facts and in law. 12. In the normal circumstances, this Court could have remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudicating the issue as raised by Narendra Kumar Jha, but then what would prevent this Court in exercising such discretion in favour of Narendra Kumar Jha is his own conduct inasmuch as he belonging to the general category and having not produced any evidence of his original application of being disabled with 40% of disability and also produced the forged application before this Court, as noted above, will not be entitled to now agitate that issue as against the petitioner Amarnath Keshari who has been continuing in service for more than last seven years. It is in view of this aspect of the matter that this Court is now not inclined to give any further lease of life to Narendra Kumar Jha. 13. Thus for the reasons indicated above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 29.01.2012 in case No. 18 of 2009 (Annexure-1 to CWJC No. 2588 of 2012) is quashed and the writ application of petitioner Amarnath Keshri is allowed. Consequently, the writ application filed by the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha, CWJC No. 14810 of 2013, seeking implementation of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 29.1.2012 must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. Consequently, the writ application filed by the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha, CWJC No. 14810 of 2013, seeking implementation of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 29.1.2012 must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. Though this Court for the reasons indicated above was inclined to grant heavy costs against the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha, but in view of his unconditional apology, it would exempt him with a warning that he must not repeat his such act of committing purgery in any court. 15. Personal appearance of the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha is also dispensed with.