Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.— This writ petition has been filed assailing the order of the District Minority Welfare Officer which has been passed in compliance with the directions dated 7.9.2012 given in Writ Petition No.45643 of 2012. While disposing of the writ petition, this Court Court took notice that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.31028 of 2010 and since the matter had remained un attended the direction was issued on 7.9.2012. Consequently the Basic Education Officer has passed the order on 30.11.12 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not functioned in the Institution and even otherwise is not entitled for the payment as claimed by him. The order even though on merit is unassailable yet the conduct of the petitioner is such that it appears to be noted for refusing any relief. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.31028 of 2010 which had been disposed of with a direction to the Basic Education Officer to decide his claim. It appears that the petitioner without disclosing the facts of filing of the said writ petition filed Writ Petition No.59539 of 2011 which was dismissed on 2.12.2011 holding that the petitioner does not have any valid claim and even otherwise it cannot be enforced through a writ of mandamus keeping in view the status of employment of the petitioner. In short the writ petition was not maintainable for the relief claimed in respect of his payment of salary and status as a teacher in a Madarsa. The said order became final as it does not appear to have been questioned further. The third Writ Petition No.45643 of 2012 was filed for deciding a representation said to have been filed before the District Minority Welfare Officer. Consequently the District Minority Welfare Officer has now passed the impugned order which has been assailed through this writ petition. It is surprising that once the writ petition filed by the petitioner was held to be not maintainable, he obtained an order from this Court on 7.9.2012 to decide his representation which appears to have been done without disclosing the facts of the judgment dated 2.12.2011. Had this fact brought to the notice of the Court, the direction to dispose of the representation on 7.9.2012 may not have been issued. Had this fact brought to the notice of the Court, the direction to dispose of the representation on 7.9.2012 may not have been issued. Accordingly this is the fourth writ petition filed by the petitioner but fortunately he has disclosed all the facts aforesaid. In the aforesaid circumstances once the writ petition of the petitioner had been dismissed on 2.12.2011 there was no occasion either for the District Minority Welfare Officer to have decided the matter without noticing the same and the petitioner appears to have deliberately suppressed this fact while filing Writ Petition No.45643 of 2012. The present writ petition of 2012 has been filed by the same lawyer who had drafted and presented the earlier writ petition. In the aforesaid circumstances to encourage any further maintaining of a fresh writ petition would be a clear abuse of the process of the Court as attempted by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore is not entitled to any discretionary relief. The petitioner in the opinion of the Court is either a gambler of courts or he has been deliberately and wrongly advised to file writ petitions after writ petitions before this Court concealing material information. But this court is not a Casino nor judges are facilitators. The shuffling of different petitions, as from a pack of cards in a deal of whist, with a hope like a bet, is not part of the game of justice. The attempt of the petitioner and of his counsel to seek relief somehow the other cannot but be condoned. It should be kept in mind that in our democracy we are ruled by a written Constitution and laws made thereunder but at the same time there are innumerable unwritten codes of traditional discipline that emanate from the virtue of restraint. An exercise of short listing and cases being rejected at the lawyer's desk should also not be neglected. A temptation to file any case should not be easily converted into a compulsion even if it is not worth the deal. A distinction between pure legal gambling and genuine legal pursuit has to be drawn before coming to a court of law. Not only the present case, the courts have been regularly experiencing this trait to be flourishing and on the rise, as a consequence whereof costs are being imposed and perjury is being tried. A distinction between pure legal gambling and genuine legal pursuit has to be drawn before coming to a court of law. Not only the present case, the courts have been regularly experiencing this trait to be flourishing and on the rise, as a consequence whereof costs are being imposed and perjury is being tried. This not only consumes immeasurably the precious time of the court that is wasted but also directly comes on the reputation of a noble profession. The litigant in the final outcome also experiences harassment. Citing of overruled decisions either by ignorance of information is passed on to the courts during arguments. Judges, in this situation are being driven to be more apprehensive in order to achieve objectivity and minimize errors. It is said that prevention is better than cure. This should spring from the Bar and has to be monitored by the Bench. It is not the sole responsibility only of the Judges but a greater share of the discharge of this duty rests on the shoulders of the lawyers. It is they who get the first opportunity to judge their proposed actions in courts before Judges actually deal with them. Plans fail because lawyers fail to plan genuinely. Cases are lost for want of preparation. The honesty part in the preparation is diluted when such attempts are made. We as judges, however currently feel that extensive preparation is wanting. Minute details are left to the care of either the steno-typist or the clerk who does the ground work for filing cases. Spelling and grammatical mistakes are writ large in drafting, that to make out sense one has to step into the minds, not the shoes, of the litigant and his lawyer. To fish out head and tail of the crux pleaded is also the task of the bench. The incoherence and the communication gap between the litigant and several tiers of lawyers, right from the village barrister, the local counsel, the drafter, the presenter and the arguing counsel, leaves not only the litigant, but also the court bewildered. It is saddening when all this mayhem is discovered to be a conspiratorial wrong legal advice. We have been condoning profusely all these short comings in the larger interest of dispensation of justice where the litigants interest is supreme and truth is the ultimate target, but such concessions are telling upon us heavily. It is saddening when all this mayhem is discovered to be a conspiratorial wrong legal advice. We have been condoning profusely all these short comings in the larger interest of dispensation of justice where the litigants interest is supreme and truth is the ultimate target, but such concessions are telling upon us heavily. This might lead to a collapse. Fortunately the change in the overall educational pattern has appeared like a silver living with the introduction of five year professional courses in law where students are being substantially groomed in the fundamentals of law. For the present, the majority today who practice are prone to advance arguments without the aid of even the bare acts or the prevalent authorities on the subject. This can be remedied with a little of effort that will make the Bar grow richer and wiser. Bad facts make bad laws. The stream of justice would be purer and perfection would be substantially achieved if this effort is redeemed above pure selfish interests. It is also against the interest of the litigants and the interest of the judiciary to allow any legal laundering. Such attempts result in not only a pecuniary loss to the litigants but he is also mentally disturbed. Above all such transactions lead to the loss of faith in the system. To cover up such deficit discipline the aid of rumors are taken to relate stories of influential lawyers in seeking to get orders by more trading. This message should not go out in the Society only because a litigant chooses to take chances by filing such writ petitions as involved in the present case. This litigation reflects the contemporary scene of the practice of the legal process which is no sermon but a small attempt to display the situation being faced by the system. Our temples of justice are patterned on the line of the High Court and Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and are not of the " Monte Carlo" or "Las Vegas" variety. Our temples of justice are patterned on the line of the High Court and Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and are not of the " Monte Carlo" or "Las Vegas" variety. It is in this back ground that way back in 18th Century Benjamin Franklin wrote a poem which is quoted hereunder: "I know you lawyers can with ease Twist words and meanings as you please; That language, by your skill made pliant, Will bend, to favor every client; That 'tis the fee limits the sense To make out either side's pretense, When you peruse the clearest case, You see it with a double face, For skepticism's your profession, You hold there's doubt in all expression, Hence is the Bar with fees supplied,- Hence eloquence takes either side; Your hand would have but paltry gleaning Court every man express his meaning, Who dares presume to pen a deed Unless you previously are feed? 'Tis drawn, and to augment the cost, In dull prolixity engrossed; And now we're well secured by law, Till the next brother find a flaw." With the aforesaid humble views there is no option but to dismiss the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. _____________