Judgment Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. By medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed the following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the order dated 30.10.2013 at Annexure P-12 passed by the respondent No.1 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected, may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the order dated 29.12.2012 at Annexure P-10 issued by the respondent No.2, whereby the recognition of the petitioner institution “Ramanujam Royal College of Education” for B.Ed course has been withdrawn may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the respondents may further be directed to restore the recognition of the petitioner institution for B.Ed course in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, who established a College for running B.Ed course on regular basis with an intake of 100 seats, pursuant to the ‘No Objection Certificate’ (for short ‘NOC’) issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It is claimed that after obtaining NOC from the State Government, the petitioner got recognition for its College from the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education, Jaipur (for short ‘NCTE’) and the College is affiliated with the H.P. University. 3. The petitioner sought permission from NCTE for shifting the premises of the College from village Mangal to its new campus at village Samloh, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. vide letter dated 23.8.2006. The inspection committee constituted by NCTE inspected the institution in the new campus and granted permission at the new site vide letter dated 18.8.2010. However, the respondent No.1 on 3.8.2012 issued a show cause notice pointing out the following discrepancies: “* The institution has not submitted the list of existing teaching faculty approved by affiliating university ; * The documents verifying that the salary to the teaching faculty is being paid either through cheques or bank transfer has not been submitted. * Size of multipurpose hall is only 1510.4 sq.feet against 2000 sq.feet as required under NCTE norms.” 4. In response to the queries raised by respondent No.1, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 14.9.2012 in the following manner: “To The Regional Director, Northern Council for Teacher Education, 20/198, Kaveri Pata Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur-302020. Subject: Reply of notice under Section 14 (1) of the NCTE Act. Ref: Your office letter No. F.NRC/NCTE/201st meeting/HP-177/2012/29156 dated 17 August, 2012. File No. : HP-177. Subject: Reply of notice under Section 14 (1) of the NCTE Act. Ref: Your office letter No. F.NRC/NCTE/201st meeting/HP-177/2012/29156 dated 17 August, 2012. File No. : HP-177. Respected Sir, With profound regards, in reference to the pre said letter of your esteemed office I want to put some facts for your kind consideration. 1. The college has appointed six Lecturers as faculty for the B.Ed., two are approved by H.P. University whereas four are appointed on adhoc basis. List of existing teacher attached (Annexure-I) 2. The salary to the staff is being disbursed through cheque. Certificate from bank manager is attached (Annexure-II) 3. The size of multipurpose hall has been increased by expanding it to 2000 sq.ft. The map of building is attached (Annexure-III) Therefore, your esteemed goodself is requested to please take the decision in favour of the institution and oblige. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Sd/- Chairman, President, Managing Committee, Managing Committee, Ramanujam Royal College of Ramanujam Royal Group of Institutes. Education, H.P. 177.” 5. Vide another letter dated 14.9.2012 the following information appears to have been imparted to respondent No.2 by the petitioner:- “To The Regional Director, Northern Council for Teacher Education, 20/198, Kaveri Pata Near Mansarover Stadium, Mansarover, Jaipur-302020. Subject: Grant of Permission for two months. Ref: Your office letter No. F.NRC/NCTE/201st meeting/HP-177/2012/29156 dated 17 August, 2012. File No. : HP-177. Respected Sir, With profound regard, in reference to the pre said letter of your esteemed office I want to put some facts for your kind consideration. 1. The college has appointed six Lecturer as faculty for the B.Ed., two are approved by H.P. University whereas four are appointed on adhoc basis. We have also send a request to the Dean, College Developing Committee Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla for supplying the panel to conduct interview, so it is on the H.P.U., Shimla whenever they supply the panel. List of existing teacher attached (Annexure-I) 2. The salary to the staff is being disbursed through cheque. Certificate of bank manager is attached (Annexure-II) 3. Size of multipurpose hall is 1510.4 sq.feet against 2000 sq.feet as required under NCTE norms. We have started construction work to increase the size of multipurpose hall to 2000 sq. feet it will took minimum two months to complete. The salary to the staff is being disbursed through cheque. Certificate of bank manager is attached (Annexure-II) 3. Size of multipurpose hall is 1510.4 sq.feet against 2000 sq.feet as required under NCTE norms. We have started construction work to increase the size of multipurpose hall to 2000 sq. feet it will took minimum two months to complete. Therefore, your esteemed goodself is requested to grant us permission for two months to complete the above mentioned compliance for taking final decision in favour of the institution and oblige. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- Chairman, Managing Committee, Ramanujam Royal College of Education, H.P. 177.” 6. Vide order dated 29.12.2012, the respondent No.1 withdrew the recognition of the petitioner-institution for B.Ed course by according the following reasons: “…………..AND WHEREAS, the case of the institution was considered by the NRC in its 201st meeting held from July 12th to 15th, 2012 and the Committee decided that show cause notice under Section 17 of NCTE Act, 1993 be issued to the institution. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the institution on 17.08.2012 on the following points:- • The institution has not submitted the list of existing teaching faculty approved by affiliating university. • The documents verifying that the salary to the teaching faculty is being paid either through cheques or bank transfer has not been submitted. • Size of multipurpose hall is only 1510.4 sq. feet against 2000 sq.feet as required under NCTE norms. AND WHEREAS, the reply dated 14.09.2012 submitted by the institution in response to the show cause notice in the NRC office on 24.09.2012 was placed before the NRC in its 207th meeting held from November 27th to 30th, 2012 and the Committee decided that the recognition for the said course be withdrawal under provision of clause 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 from the next following academic session. FDRs if submitted by the institution be returned on the following grounds:- In the reply to Show Cause Notice, the institution has submitted its reply dated 14.09.2012 is received on 24.09.2012. As per the letter – (a) The institution itself accepted that only two lecturers for B.Ed. course are approved by the H.P. University, whereas post of one Principal and five lecturers not approved by the affiliating university as per the NCTE norms and regulations, 2009. (b) Proof of size of multipurpose hall has not submitted. As per the letter – (a) The institution itself accepted that only two lecturers for B.Ed. course are approved by the H.P. University, whereas post of one Principal and five lecturers not approved by the affiliating university as per the NCTE norms and regulations, 2009. (b) Proof of size of multipurpose hall has not submitted. NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 17 (1) of NCTE Act, 2009, the Northern Regional Committee hereby withdraw the above recognition granted to Ramanujam Royal College of Education, Village Mangal, P.O. Kandhar, Distt. Solan-171102, Himachal Pradesh for 100 seats in the B.Ed. Course on the grounds mentioned above with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of this order. If the institution is not satisfied by the above order they can prefer an appeal to the Council (NCTE, New Delhi) in terms of Sections 18 of NCTE Act, 1993 within 60 days from the date of this order. The guidelines of appeal are enclosed herewith.” 7. An appeal was thereafter preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed as time barred vide order dated 30.10.2013. 8. The petitioner now claims that once it had removed all the shortcomings and brought the same to the notice of respondent No.1, therefore, there was no question of respondent No.1 having withdrawn the affiliation. 9. In reply filed by respondent No.1, preliminary objection was taken to the effect that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands and had virtually tried to mislead the Court. It has further been stated that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on account of concealment of facts alone. It was further claimed that matters of recognition of the institutes are guided by the regulations which are required to be strictly adhered to. It is further averred that the petitioner-institute had advertised seven posts of Lecturers in Education and one post of Principal in the Tribune on 30.12.2012 and the meeting of the Selection Committee duly constituted by the Himachal Pradesh University took place on 18.3.2013. As per the proceedings of Selection Committee in response to advertisement, 17 candidates had applied for the post of Lecturer while none had applied for the post of Principal. After scrutiny, it was found that only one candidate was eligible while the rest were ineligible. As per the proceedings of Selection Committee in response to advertisement, 17 candidates had applied for the post of Lecturer while none had applied for the post of Principal. After scrutiny, it was found that only one candidate was eligible while the rest were ineligible. However, even the eligible candidate did not attend the interview. 10. The petitioner’s thereafter did not issue any fresh advertisement and on the basis of the same advertisement which had already been exhausted, another Selection Committee meeting was convened on 18.6.2013 wherein again reference of 17 candidates was given and now five candidates had been shown to have been selected. It is claimed that this aspect of the matter could not be explained by the petitioner and, therefore, was required to be enquired into and even the role of the H.P. University was required to be probed. 11. In rejoinder to the aforesaid averments and in order to justify its stand of having appointed Lecturer on the basis of the advertisement, the petitioner has made the following averments: “………The respondents have failed to appreciate that when the more approved lecturers were required, the requisition was given to the University for constitution of the Selection Committee by nominating subject experts and Vice Chancellor, nominee and on that count, the selections were awaited. Since the institution was shifted from existing infrastructure to the new infrastructure, wherein the size of multi purpose hall was somewhat deficient and the deficiency was immediately removed, have also been ignored to be considered by the respondents. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by the petitioner institution in the Tribune of 30.12.2012, five eligible candidates were selected by the Selection Committee constituted by the University on 18.6.2013. Notably, the Selection Committee was duly constituted as per norms of the H.P. University on the nomination of subject experts and Vice Chancellor nominee before making the selection on 18.6.2013. The deficiencies as pointed out while withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner institution have duly been removed and fully eligible and qualified Principal is on the rolls, however, Selection Committee for his regular appointment has not been constituted by the University because of withdrawal of recognition by the respondents, however, he is fully eligible and qualified for regular appointment, as such.” 12. The matter came up for consideration before this Court on 2.7.2014 when after noticing the aforesaid discrepancies, this Court passed a detailed order directing the petitioner to file an affidavit explaining these discrepancies. 13. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed its affidavit, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows: “3. That an advertisement was issued in the daily newspaper the Tribune on 30.12.2012 requiring staff in the college vide notice issued at Annexure A-1. 4. That on the request of the petitioner at Annexure A-2, the panel of experts and V.C. nominee was supplied to the petitioner college at Annexure A-3 (colly). Needless to state that one of the V.C. nominee Professor S.K. Garg was changed, with the change of the guard, hence at the request of the petitioner, for supply of his substitute, Professor R.S. Chauhan was nominated as such on 04.03.2013. 5. That pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure A-1, 17 candidates applied for the post of the lecturer/Assistant Professor, but none for the post of Principal, up till 17.04.2013. A list of the applicants is at Annexure A-4. 6. That vide notification dated 29.05.2012 issued by the H.P. University, the requirement of possessing NET qualification was dispensed with and as such M.Ed. & M.Phil in Education were made eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor. Since requisite number of M.Ed. & M.Phil candidates had become available, hence the petitioner proceeded with the conducting of the interviews for the post of lecturer/Assistant Professor and accordingly the V.C. nominee and subject expert etc. were called for 18.04.2013. 7. That the selection committee conducted the interview on 18.04.2013, wherein none of the candidates appeared in the interview, was found eligible, although one of the candidate Sh. Param Jeet Singh Dhaliwal was eligible, yet he had not appeared in the interview. In fact, the exemption granted by the H.P. University vide notification dated 29.05.2012, dispensing with the requirement of NET, had been turned down by the UGC but the said factum was not in the notice of petitioner and in view of that, mere M. Ed. & M. Phil passed candidates were not eligible for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor and they were rightly held ineligible by the selection committee. The notification dated 29.05.2012 is not available with the petitioner but the same finds mention in the corrigendum issued by the H.P. University at Annexure P-5. & M. Phil passed candidates were not eligible for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor and they were rightly held ineligible by the selection committee. The notification dated 29.05.2012 is not available with the petitioner but the same finds mention in the corrigendum issued by the H.P. University at Annexure P-5. A copy of the proceedings of the Selection Committee dated 18.04.2013 is at Annexure A-6. 8. That in the advertisement issued at Annexure A-1, since there was no last date fixed for inviting applications for the posts in question, hence more candidates continued applying and when requisite number of NET qualified candidates became available for the post of lecturers/Assistant Professor, the petitioner again constituted the selection committee and invited the V.C. nominee and subject expert for conducting the interviews again, which were held on 18.06.2013, wherein there was no candidate for the post of Principal but requisite number of Lecturers/Assistant Professor were recommended for appointment. A copy of the proceedings held on 18.06.2013, is brought on record as Annexure A-7. The list of the candidates who were the applicants after previous interview up-till 18.06.2013 is brought on record as Annexure A-8.” 14. Subsequently, when the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 11.7.2014, the following order was passed: “It is not disputed that College had advertised one post of Principal and seven posts of Lecturers in Education in newspaper “The Tribune” in its edition dated 30th December 2012. In response whereof, 17 candidates had applied for the post of lecturers and one had applied for the post of Principal. After scrutiny of academic record of the candidates, the college found that one candidate Sh. Paramjit Singh Dhaliwal was eligible while the rest of the 16 candidates were in-eligible. Even Sh. Paramjit Singh Dhaliwal did not appear in the said interview. Thus the life and purpose of the advertisement came to an end on the basis of the interviews fixed for 18.4.2013 and in such circumstances, a fresh advertisement was required to be issued calling upon all the eligible candidates to apply for the posts in question. Even Sh. Paramjit Singh Dhaliwal did not appear in the said interview. Thus the life and purpose of the advertisement came to an end on the basis of the interviews fixed for 18.4.2013 and in such circumstances, a fresh advertisement was required to be issued calling upon all the eligible candidates to apply for the posts in question. The petitioner did not resort to said procedure, which constrained this court to pass the following order on 2.7.2014: “The perusal of document, Annexure P-13, dated 18.4.2013 at page 32 of the paper book shows that the following statement has been recorded therein: “……The college had advertised one post of Principal and seven posts of Lecturers in Education in the newspaper namely the Tribune dated 30.12.2012. In response to the advertisements Seventeen candidates have applied for the post of lecturers and none applied for the post of Principal. After scrutiny of academic record of the candidates, it was found that only one candidate Paramjit Singh Dhaliwal was eligible, rest of the sixteen candidates were ineligible. However Shri Paramjit Singh Dhariwal didn’t appear in the interview.” Thereafter another document annexed with the writ petition Annexure P-13 dated 19.6.2013, contains the following statement: “….The College had advertised one post of Principal and seven posts of Lecturers in Education in the newspaper namely “The Tribune” dated 30.12.2012. In response to the advertisements Seventeen candidates have applied for the post of lecturers and none applied for the post of Principal. On the basis of academic records of the candidates and their performance following candidates were selected for appointment of Lecturers on regular basis on UGC scale: 1. Teaching of Life Science : Mr. Atul Thakur S/o Sh. Bir Singh Thakur 2. Teaching of Social Science :Mr. Kashmir Singh S/o Sh. Behmi Singh 3. Teaching of English : Mr. Mohinder Singh S/o Sh. Braham Dass 4. Foundation Courses : Ms. Nidhi Awasthi D/o Sh. J.K. Mahindroo 5. Teaching of Social Science : Mr. Kanwal Preet Singh S/o Sh. Randhir Singh”. The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.12.2012, 17 candidates appeared and none of them were found eligible save and except only one candidate Paramjit Singh Dhaliwal, who did not appear in the interview. J.K. Mahindroo 5. Teaching of Social Science : Mr. Kanwal Preet Singh S/o Sh. Randhir Singh”. The learned counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.12.2012, 17 candidates appeared and none of them were found eligible save and except only one candidate Paramjit Singh Dhaliwal, who did not appear in the interview. Then how in the proceedings recorded on 19.6.2013 it has been stated that pursuant to this very advertisement dated 30.12.2012, 17 candidates applied for the post of Lecturers and none applied for the post of Principal. In this meeting it has been further recorded that on the basis of the academic records of the candidates and their performance, the following candidates out of the above 17 candidates were selected for appointment of Lecturers on regular basis on UGC scale. “1. Teaching of Life Science : Mr. Atul Thakur S/o Sh. Bir Singh Thakur 2. Teaching of Social Science : Mr. Kashmir Singh S/o . Sh. Behmi Singh 3. Teaching of English : Mr. Mohinder Singh S/o . Sh. Braham Dass 4. Foundation Courses : Ms. Nidhi Awasthi D/o Sh. J.K. Mahindroo 5. Teaching of Social Science : Mr. Kanwal Preet Singh S/o Sh. Randhir Singh”. Once the candidature of 17 candidates was considered earlier on 18.4.2013 as finds recorded in those proceedings and none was found so eligible, then how and in what circumstances now out of 17 candidates, 5 candidates have been selected for appointment as Lecturers, is not forthcoming. The petitioner shall file an affidavit explaining this position within one week. List on 11.7.2014. On that date, the original records of the proceedings be also made available to this Court.” In compliance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has produced the original record and filed an affidavit, wherein in paragraph-8, the following averments have been made:- “8. That in the advertisement issued at annexure A- 1, since there was no last date fixed for inviting applications for the posts in question, hence more candidates continued applying and when requisite Number of NET qualified candidates became available for the post of lecturers/Assistant professor, the petitioner again constituted the selection committee and invited the VC nominee and subject expert for conducting the interviews again, which were held on 18.6.2013, wherein there was no candidate for the post of principal but requisite Number of Lecturers/Assistant Professor were recommended for appointment. A copy of the proceedings held on 18.6.2013, is brought on record as Annexure A-7. The list of the candidates who were the applicants after previous interview up till 18.6.2013 is brought on record as Annexure A-8.” The explanation offered by the petitioner is not at all satisfactory. There is no explanation as to whether the external examiners deputed by the University in terms of letter dated 5.1.2013 had been apprised of the aforesaid fact and if apprised whether they had applied their mind and made the subsequent recommendations. A bare perusal of the proceedings of the Selection Committee, which met on 18.6.2013 as reflected in the document Annexure P-13 dated 19.6.2013 shows that out of six nominees, there were five nominees from the University, who appeared to have signed the proceedings on doted lines. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the issue, the Himachal Pradesh University through its Registrar is impleaded as party and arrayed as respondent No. 3 to this petition, as admittedly it is on the basis of the recommendations made by the representatives of the University that appointments have been made. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 to file a detail affidavit explaining its position before the next date of hearing. The desirability of issuing notice to the members of the Selection Committee would be considered after the aforesaid affidavit is filed by the Registrar of the University. List on 25.7.2014.” 15. In compliance to the aforesaid order dated 11.7.2014, Professor Rajinder Singh Chauhan, presently working as Pro-Vice Chancellor, H.P. University, filed his affidavit, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows: “1. That the duly constituted selection committee in terms of the provisions of Ordinance 38.5 (B) d has conducted interview on 18.04.2013 and found only one candidate i.e. Sh. Paramjit Singh eligible. However, he did not appear on the said date of interview. 2. That the duly constituted selection committee in terms of the provisions of Ordinance 38.5 (B) d has conducted interview on 18.04.2013 and found only one candidate i.e. Sh. Paramjit Singh eligible. However, he did not appear on the said date of interview. 2. That the Chairman of the Selection Committee who is either the President of the Governing Body of the College or his nominee finalized the date for conducting the interviews for the appointment of teaching faculty on 18.06.2013 and since the Vice Chancellor of the University had appointed the nominees and subject experts to participate in the counseling process for appointment of teaching faculty, the members visited the Petitioner’s college on 18.06.2013 and conducted the interviews for the appointment of teaching faculty. After perusal of the applications submitted by the candidates, the eligible candidates were selected as teaching faculty out of list of the candidates who had applied for the post of Assistant Professor which is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1. As per the qualifications prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education and University Grants Commission, five candidates who appeared in the interview on 18.06.2013 were selected. It is submitted that due to inadvertence, the Selection Committee who were the nominees and subject experts as appointed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University could not notice that they had earlier conducted interviews on 18.04.2013 on the basis of advertisement dated 30.12.2012 nor the said fact was brought into notice by the nominee of the petitioner college who otherwise were aware that the interviews on the basis of the advertisement dated 30.12.2012 cannot be conducted again. However, it is submitted that so far the selection is made by the Selection Committee who were the nominees and subject experts of the Vice-Chancellor of University have selected the candidates who were having the requisite minimum eligibility required for holding the post of Assistant Professor (Education). To demonstrate that the persons who had earlier applied and were not eligible is clear from the Annexure A-4 appended by the petitioner college while filing the compliance affidavit dated 09.07.2014 in compliance to the order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the Hon’ble Court. 3. That the role and responsibility of the Selection Committee is to interview the eligible candidates who appear for interview before the Selection Committee. 3. That the role and responsibility of the Selection Committee is to interview the eligible candidates who appear for interview before the Selection Committee. The legality and propriety of the procedure is to be seen by the management of the college administration and the Chairman of the Selection Committee i.e. Chairperson/President of the Management Committee who had produced a list of candidates before the Selection Committee. Further, it is to be stated that the Selection Committee is to judge suitability of candidates for the post and to make recommendations to the appointing authority in order of merit.” 16. A counter affidavit to the affidavit of Sh. Rajinder Singh Chauhan was filed by the petitioner wherein it was stated that the petitioner was unaware of the fact that on the basis of the advertisement dated 30.12.2012, no fresh interview could be conducted and this fact was not even brought to its notice by the members of the Selection Committee. The relevant portion of his affidavit, reads as follows: “Para-2: That the contents of this para of the affidavit to the extent it has been alleged that the petitioner, who was aware that the interviews on the basis of advertisement dated 30.12.2012 could not be conducted again, had not brought the fact to the notice of the members of the Selection Committee, are wrong and are hence denied. The fact remains that the petitioner was not aware of this technicality that the interview could not be conducted again on the same advertisement. He was under bonafide belief that since no candidate appeared in the earlier interview fixed for 18.04.2014 and subsequently eligible qualified candidates had become available hence the second interview was conducted on 18.06.2014. He has not concealed anything deliberately and none of the selected candidates has been given any sort of favour and only fully qualified and eligible candidates have been selected by the Selection Committee. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has not got any undue gain by holding interview on the same advertisement and he has not done anything intentionally or willfully or with malafide intention to mislead the University. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has not got any undue gain by holding interview on the same advertisement and he has not done anything intentionally or willfully or with malafide intention to mislead the University. He be not may to suffer for his bonafide mistake/lack of due diligence as he has conducted the second interview on the same advertisement, under the bonafide impression that first interview had not led into any conclusive result and there was no expressed or any contrary instructions of the respondent-University in this behalf. However, now a fresh advertisement has been issued on 02.08.2014 in the daily news paper at Annexure A-10 annexed herewith for making fresh selection for the posts in question. The petitioner has also requested the respondent University for providing Panel for conducting interview to the post of Principal as well as Lecturer vide Annexure A-11 through registered post, the receipt of the same is placed on record at Annexure A-12.” 17. It is to be borne in mind that the teachers occupy a very pivotal position in our society. They are shaping the future of our children. Teachers are instrumental in moulding the character of students, and would be of immense help to students to unearth their hidden talents. Such being the importance of teachers, the trainees must be given qualitative training and the Training Institutes should possess all the required facilities including well qualified and trained staff. 18. In Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education and Ors, AIR 1989, SC 183, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized the importance of education for B.Ed., pointing out that, as those persons have to handle tiny tods, therefore, Teacher alone could bring out their skills and intellectual activities. He is the engine of the educational system. He is a superb instrument in awakening the children to cultural values. He must possess potentiality to deliver enlightened service to the society. His quality should be such as could inspire and motivate into action to the benefiter. He must keep himself abreast of ever-changing communities. He is not to perform in wooden and unimaginative way; he must eliminate unwarranted tendencies and attitudes and infuse noveliar and national ideas in younger generation; and his involvement in national integration is more important; indeed, indispensable. 19. He must keep himself abreast of ever-changing communities. He is not to perform in wooden and unimaginative way; he must eliminate unwarranted tendencies and attitudes and infuse noveliar and national ideas in younger generation; and his involvement in national integration is more important; indeed, indispensable. 19. In Ram Sukh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 1990 SC 592, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not permit the untrained Teachers to teach the children, observing that they require proper handling by well-trained Teachers. 20. In Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust (2001) 5 SCC 486 , the Supreme Court expressed its deep concern over the emergence of education shops without adhering to the norms. It was held: “12. At present, there is tremendous change in social values and environment. Some persons consider nothing wrong in commercializing education. Still however, private institutions cannot be permitted to have educational shops in the country. Therefore, there are statutory prohibitions for establishing and administering educational institution without prior permission or approval by the authority concerned. On occasions, the authorities concerned, for various reasons, fail to discharge their function in accordance with the statutory provisions, rules and regulations. In some cases, because of the zeal to establish such educational institution by persons having means to do so, approach the authorities, but because of red tapism or for extraneous reasons, such permissions are not granted or are delayed. As against this, it has been pointed out that instead of charitable institutions, persons having means, considering the demands of the market rush for establishing technical educational institutions including medical college or dental college as a commercial venture with the sole object of earning profits and/or for some other purpose. Such institutions fail to observe the norms prescribed under the Act or the Regulations and exploit the situation because of the everincreasing demand for such institutions.” “It is equality true that unless there are proper educational facilities in the society, it would be difficult to meet with the requirements of younger generation who have keen desire to acquire knowledge and education to compete in the global market…..Since ages our culture and civilization have recognized that education is one of the pious obligation of the Society…. It is for us to preserve that rich heritage of our culture of transcending the education continuously unpolluted. 21. It is for us to preserve that rich heritage of our culture of transcending the education continuously unpolluted. 21. In Rohit Singhal and others vs. Principal, Jawahar N. Vidyalaya and others, (2003) 1 SCC 687 the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed its great concern regarding children education, observing that “Children are not only the future citizens but also the future of the earth. Elders in general, and parents and teachers in particular, owe a responsibility for taking care of the well-being and welfare of the children. The world shall be a better or worse place to live according to how we treat the children today. Education is an investment made by the nation in its children for harvesting a future crop of responsible adults productive of a well functioning Society. However, children are vulnerable. They need to be valued, nurtured, caressed and protected.” 22. In Manager, Nirmala Senior Secondary School v. N.I. Khan, (2003) 12 SCC 84, the Supreme Court indicated the role of teachers thus:- “A teacher affects eternity. He can never tell where his influence stops; said Henry Adam. Any educational institution for its growth and acceptability to a large measure depends upon the quality of teachers. 2. Educational institutions are temples of learning. The virtues of human intelligence are mastered and harmonized by education. Where there is complete harmony between the teacher and the taught, where the teacher imparts and the student receives, where there is complete dedication of the teacher and the taught in learning, where there is discipline between the teacher and the taught, where both are worshippers of learning, no discord or challenge will arise. An educational institution runs smoothly when the teacher and the taught are engaged in the common ideal of pursuit of knowledge. It is, therefore, manifest that the appointment of teachers is an important part in educational institutions. The qualifications and the character of the teachers are really important.” 23. In Visveswaraya Technological University and another vs. Krishnaendu Halder and others (2011) 3 Scale 359, while approving the fixation of criteria higher than those fixed by All India Council for Teacher Education, Supreme Court made a reference about the mushrooming of Private Institutions in Teacher Education. The observation reads thus:- “11. The primary reason for seats remaining vacant in a State, is the mushrooming of private institutions in higher education. The observation reads thus:- “11. The primary reason for seats remaining vacant in a State, is the mushrooming of private institutions in higher education. This is so in several States in regard to teachers training institutions, dental colleges or engineering colleges. The second reason is certain disciplines going out of favour with students because they are considered to be no longer promising or attractive for future career prospects. The third reason is the bad reputation acquired by some institutions due to lack of infrastructure, bad faculty and indifferent teaching. Fixing of higher standards, marginally higher than the minimum, is seldom the reason for seats in some colleges remaining vacant or unfilled during a particular year. Therefore, a student whose marks fall short of the eligibility criteria fixed by the State/University, or any college which admits such students directly under the management quota, cannot contend that the admission of students found qualified under the criteria fixed by AICTE, should be approved even if they do not fulfill the higher eligibility criteria fixed by the State/University.” 24. Importance of education was highlighted by Division Bench of this Court, (of which I was author) in Surinder Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP No. 409 of 2014, wherein the following observations from the judgment delivered by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir by Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir (as his Lordship then was) in OWP No. 674 of 2010 titled Khursheed Ahmad Sheikh & Ors. vs. State of others decided on 6.6.2012, was relied upon which reads as under: “21. The importance of education has been highlighted in a judgment delivered by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir by one of us (Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice) in OWP No.674 of 2010 titled Khursheed Ahmad Sheikh & Ors. versus State of Others, along with connected matters, decided on 06.06.2012, wherein the need for quality education has been emphasized in the following manner:- “24. At the very outset let us advert to the essence of word ‘Education’ being the foundation of all the writ petitions. The purpose of essence of education is a basis for foundation of nation, thus while establishing Universaties or Centres outside State, necessary requirements of the enactments/Acts/Rules and Regulations are to be followed. Any institution established or run to dehors of rules virtually amounts to demolishing the society. The purpose of essence of education is a basis for foundation of nation, thus while establishing Universaties or Centres outside State, necessary requirements of the enactments/Acts/Rules and Regulations are to be followed. Any institution established or run to dehors of rules virtually amounts to demolishing the society. The Regulations, Acts, Rules, applicable serve the interests of students, teachers and the public at large. Their role is of paramount importance; the good education aims at to preserve harmony among affiliated institution.” “35. Before proceeding further on the issue, the purpose and concept of Education be reminiscent: The dictionary meaning of Education is learning; to gain knowledge. The petitioners, like all those people who pursue and are in search of particular knowledge, have a propensity to become the torch bearers only if the same is pursued and accomplished in a very fair; transparent and legal manner; but if the degrees, as in the case in hand, are provided like a street commodity the fate of the future can just be anticipated. 36. This court would not hesitate even to say that if the objection regarding the sanctity of petitioners degrees would not have been raised by the respondents, the probability was that they would have made their entry on different posts, again meant for imparting education, and the same would have resulted in generational waywardness, for, a candle cannot light another unless it continues to burn its own flame.” 25. A Division Bench of this Court, (of which I was author) in CWP No. 7688 of 2013 titled H-Private Universities Management Association (H-PUMA) vs. State of H.P. decided on 23.7.2014, was dealing with the right of private universities to make admission to various technical courses in the institution dehors the rules wherein it was held that right to establish an educational institution was not a business or trade, given solely for the profit making since the establishment of educational institutions bears a clear charitable purpose. The establishment of these institutions has a direct relation with the public interest in creating such institutions because this relationship between the public interest and private freedom determines the nature of public controls which can be permitted to be permissible. This Court also upheld the right of the State to act as a regulator to maintain academic standard. The following observations from the judgment deserve to be taken note of: “20. This Court also upheld the right of the State to act as a regulator to maintain academic standard. The following observations from the judgment deserve to be taken note of: “20. In view of the various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can safely be concluded that in a right to establish an institution, inherent is the right to administer the same which is protected as part of the freedom of occupation under Article 19(1)(g). Equally, at the same time, it has to be remembered that this right is not a business or a trade, given solely for the profit making since the establishment of educational institutions bears a clear charitable purpose. The establishment of these institutions has a direct relation with the public interest in creating such institutions because this relationship between the public interest and private freedom determines the nature of public controls which can be permitted to be “permissible”. Even the petitioners concede that they have established the institutions to ensure good quality education and would not permit the standard of excellence to fall below the standard as may be prescribed by the State Government. The petitioners also conceded that the State makes it mandatory for them to maintain the standard of excellence in professional institutions. Thus, ensuring that admissions policies are based on merit, it is crucial for the State to act as a regulator. No doubt, this may have some effect on the autonomy of the private unaided institution but that would not mean that their freedom under Article 19(1)(g) has in any manner been violated. The freedom contemplated under Article 19(1)(g) does not imply or even suggest that the State cannot regulate educational institutions in the larger public interest nor it be suggested that under Article 19(1)(g), only insignificant and trivial matters can be regulated by the State. Therefore, what clearly emerges is that the autonomy granted to private unaided institutions cannot restrict the State’s authority and duty to regulate academic standards. On the other hand, it must be taken to be equally settled that the State’s authority cannot obliterate or unduly compromise these institutions’ autonomy. In fact it is in matters of ensuring academic standards that the balance necessarily tilts in favour of the State taking into consideration the public interest and the responsibility of the State to ensure the maintenance of higher standards of education. 23. In fact it is in matters of ensuring academic standards that the balance necessarily tilts in favour of the State taking into consideration the public interest and the responsibility of the State to ensure the maintenance of higher standards of education. 23. The State has power to regulate academic excellence particularly in matters of admissions to the institutions and, therefore, is competent to prescribe merit based admission processes for creating uniform admission process through CET. Any prayer for seeking dilution or even questioning the authority of the State to act an regulator is totally ill-founded in view of the various judicial pronouncements, particularly in Visveswaraiah Technological University and another vs. Krishnendu Halder and others (2011) 4 SCC 606 and reiterated in Mahatma Gandhi University and another vs. Jikku Paul and others (2011) 15 SCC 242.” 26. This Court in CWP No.2609 of 2014 titled Miss Kiran Bala and others vs. Himachal Pradesh University and others, decided on 28.8.2014 was ceased of a matter wherein the University without advertising the number of seats available for Ph.D. programme in Biotechnology, had granted permission to certain students in a manner which by no standards could be said to be fair or transparent, which constrained this Court to make the following observations: “9. From the above, it is not understandable how the University in this era still claims that it is not mandatory to notify or advertise the number of seats available for Ph. D. Program. The respondents - University in its overzealousness to contest the petition have gone to the extent of making the averments which can only be termed to be preposterous when it claims that petitioner had remained in the University for almost four long years and could not feign ignorance about the process of enrollment/admission under the Ph.D. Program in Biotechnology and about the past practice of Ph.D. enrollment. Is it to suggest that Ph.D. program offered by the University meant for the former students of the University, because it is only then they alone, who would have personal knowledge regarding “process of enrollment/admission under the Ph.D. Program in Biotechnology”. The respondents should have avoided leveling uncalled for allegations against the petitioners, which otherwise have nothing to do with the admissions of the Ph.D. program. 10. The respondents should have avoided leveling uncalled for allegations against the petitioners, which otherwise have nothing to do with the admissions of the Ph.D. program. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly spelt out in a catena of decisions that criteria for selection in such like course has to be merit alone. In fact, merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of the process for admission to such courses. It will be a travesty of justice if the rule of merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper methods of admission. There cannot be any circumstance where the rule of merit can be compromised. 11. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that not only the merit has been a causality, the respondents have failed to observe and oversee that procedure adopted is fair and transparent. It has been the consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that merit alone is the criteria for such admission and circumvention of merit is not only impermissible but is also abuse of the process of law. [See: Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 , Harshali vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 13 SCC 464 , Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 , Shrawan Kumar vs. DG of Health Services 1993 Supp. (1) SCC 632, Preeti Srivastava vs. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120 , Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Saumil Garg (2005) 13 SCC 749 and AIIMS Students’ Union vs. AIIMS (2002) 1 SCC 428 ]. 12. This court cannot ignore the fact that these admissions relate to Ph.D. courses, where there is throughout competition and the entire life of a student depends on his/ her admission to this course. Higher the competition, greater is the duty on the part of the authorities concerned to act with utmost caution to ensure transparency and fairness. It is one of the primary obligations of the University to see that a candidate of higher merit is not denied seat to the appropriate course and the same is not offered to a lesser meritorious candidate. There is no gain saying that the process of admission is a cumbersome task for the authorities but that per se cannot be a ground for compromising merit. The authorities concerned are expected to perform certain functions which must be performed in a fair and proper manner. 13. There is no gain saying that the process of admission is a cumbersome task for the authorities but that per se cannot be a ground for compromising merit. The authorities concerned are expected to perform certain functions which must be performed in a fair and proper manner. 13. The essence of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with these kind of issues is to nurture discipline, fairness and transparency in the selection and admission process and to avoid prejudice to any of the stakeholder. It is expected that the authorities would be perfect/fair and transparent in the discharge of their duties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in fact held that a candidate who adopts mal-practices in collusion with the authorities or otherwise for seeking admission and if their admissions are found to be irregular or faulty in law by the courts, they shall normally be held responsible for paying compensation to such other candidates who have been denied admission as a result of admission of the wrong candidates. The law requires adherence to certain protocol in the process of selection and grant of admission, so that none should be able to circumvent or trounce this process with or without an ulterior motive. 14. The courts are duty bound to ensure that the litigation relating to academic courses particularly professional courses, should not be generated for want of will on the part of stakeholder to follow the process of selection and admission fairly, transparently and without any exploitation. The court cannot lose sight of the fact that career of more meritorious student is at stake. These are the matters relating to adherence to the rule of merit and when its breach is complained of, the judiciary may be expected to deal with such grievance preferentially and efficiently. [See : Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and others (2012) 7 SCC 389 ]. 15. The respondents- University cannot be permitted to give admission to students in an arbitrary and nepotistic manner. The methodology adopted and the manner in which the admissions were given to respondents No. 3 to 5 leaves no doubt in the mind of this court that this process was neither fair nor transparent. 15. The respondents- University cannot be permitted to give admission to students in an arbitrary and nepotistic manner. The methodology adopted and the manner in which the admissions were given to respondents No. 3 to 5 leaves no doubt in the mind of this court that this process was neither fair nor transparent. It is required to ensure that arbitrariness and discrimination does not creep into the process of selection and equal opportunity is ensured to all eligible candidates in a just and fair manner. 16. The maxim boni judicis est causas litium dirimere places an obligation upon the court to ensure that it resolves the causes of litigation, so that litigation can be prevented by removing the cause of litigation itself.” 27. Coming back to the facts of the case, it is not disputed that the vacancies of Principle and other Lecturers in the petitioner-College were required to be filled up after proper advertisement by the Selection Committee strictly in accordance with the latest guidelines/instructions of the University Grants Commission Regulations on minimum qualifications for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in the University and Colleges as circulated by the UGC vide communication No.F.3-1/2009 dated 28.6.2010 and further adopted by the University for implementation in the colleges affiliated to it and circulated by the University vide Notification No. 3-5/78-HPU (Genl.) Vol. IV dated 9th July, 2010. The aforesaid procedure has been prescribed by the respondent-University and informed to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.1.2013. 28. Clause 6.0.0 of the UGC Regulations deals with the selection procedure which reads as under: “6.0.0 SELECTION PROCEDURES: 6.0.1 The overall selection procedure shall incorporate transparent, objective and credible methodology of analysis of the merits and credentials of the applicants based on weightages given to the performance of the candidate in different relevant dimensions and his/her performance on a scoring system proforma, based on the Academic Performance Indicators (API) as provided in this Regulations in Tables I to IX of Appendix III. 3.1.0 The Direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in the Universities and Colleges shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selections by the duly constituted Selection Committees as per the guidelines prescribed under these Regulations to be incorporated under the Statutes/Ordinances of the concerned university. 3.1.0 The Direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors in the Universities and Colleges shall be on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selections by the duly constituted Selection Committees as per the guidelines prescribed under these Regulations to be incorporated under the Statutes/Ordinances of the concerned university. The composition of such committees should be as prescribed by the UGC in these Regulations.” 29. It was also not in dispute that the petitioner-institute had advertised seven posts of Lecturers in Education and one post of Principal in the newspaper (Tribune) on 30.12.2012, pursuant to which meeting of the Selection Committee duly constituted in terms of the UGC Regulations as adopted by the respondent- University took place on 18.3.2013. Admittedly, no posts pursuant to this advertisement had been filled up. The petitioner then resorted to a novel method of filling up of the vacancies whereby no fresh advertisement was issued and the petitioner convened meeting of the Selection Committee on 18.6.2013 on the basis of the applications received as per the old advertisement dated 30.12.2012. 30. Even the Selection Committee, which comprises of six members, out of whom, one is the direct nominee of the Principal, two V.C. Nominee, while two others are subject matter expert and the sixth member is deputed by the University representing the SC/ST/OBC/Women etc., did not care to ensure that there was fairness and transparency in filling up of the posts in question. The least what was expected from the Selection Committee was to ensure that the posts in questions are filled up after issuance of proper advertisement giving an opportunity to all the eligible candidates to apply. The petitioner institution which admittedly recognized by the University was bound to ensure that the doctrine of a quality and nondiscrimination as mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution of India was not violated. 31. The petitioner institute was further required to ensure that the posts in question are filled up after issuing advertisement giving wide publicity and thereafter to ensure that there was a proper competition amongst the qualified persons after following due process of selection under the relevant Rules. 32. 31. The petitioner institute was further required to ensure that the posts in question are filled up after issuing advertisement giving wide publicity and thereafter to ensure that there was a proper competition amongst the qualified persons after following due process of selection under the relevant Rules. 32. As observed earlier, since the life-span of an advertisement have come to an end, therefore, it can be conveniently held that there was no advertisement whatsoever issued by the petitioner when it sought to fill up the posts on the basis of the Selection Committee meeting convened on 18.6.2013. The appointments made by the petitioner-institute are nothing but back door and, therefore, the appointments are total a nullity. 33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the tendency of appointment of even daily waged labourers without advertisement and termed these appointments as back door and in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India (Refer: Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, AIR 1992, SC, 789). While in the case in hand, we are dealing with a case where the posts of Principle and Lecturers has been sought to be filled up without there being any proper advertisement or rather where there was no advertisement in the eyes of law. 34. It is settled law that appointments made without following proper procedure under the Rules/Government Circulars/University Circulars and without advertisement or inviting of applications from the open market, is flagrant and breach of the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India (Refer: Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408 ). 35. In M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd., Bhopal vs. Nanuram Yadav and Others (2007) 8 SCC 264 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down following principles to be followed in the matters of public appointments: “24. It is clear that in the matter of public appointments, the following principles are to be followed: (1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the rules/government circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. (3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. (2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. (3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation. (4) Those who come by back door should go through that door. (5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules. (6) The Court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy. (7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. (8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside.” 36. Now reverting back to the petition, the petitioner was duty bound to have approached the court with clean hands and tendency of unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case has to be eschewed. A litigant who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievances and, in such case, such person is not entitled to any relief from a judicial forums. This was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramjas Foundation and another vs. Union of India and others (2010) 14 SCC 38 in the following terms: “21. The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case. 22. In Dalglish v. Jarvie (1850) 2 Mac. & G. 231 at page 238, Lord Langdale and Rolfe B. observed: (ER p.89) "It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to bring under the notice of the Court all facts material to the determination of his right to that injunction; and it is no excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any fact which he has omitted to bring forward.” 23. In Castelli v. Cook (1849) 7 Hare, 89, pae 94 Wigram V.C. stated the rule in the following words: (ER p.38) "…….a plaintiff applying ex parte comes ….under a contract with the Court that he will state the whole case fully and fairly to the Court. If he fails to do that, and the Court finds, when other party applies to dissolve the injunction, that any material fact has been suppressed or not property brought forward, the plaintiff is told the Court will not decide on the merits, and that, as he has broken faith with the Court, the injunction must go." 24. In Republic of Peru v. Dreyfus Brothers & Company 55 L.T. 802 at page 803, Kay J. held as under: "I have always maintained, and I think it most important to maintain most strictly, the rule that, in ex parte applications to this Court, the utmost good faith must be observed. If there is an important misstatement, speaking for myself, I have never hesitated, and never shall hesitate until the rule is altered, to discharge the order at once, so as to impress upon all persons who are suitors in this Court the importance of dealing in good faith in the Court when ex parte applications are made." 25. The same rule was restated by Scrutton L., J in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner (1917) 1 K.B. 486. The same rule was restated by Scrutton L., J in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner (1917) 1 K.B. 486. The facts of that case were that in April, 1916, the General Commissioners for the Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the district of Kensington made an additional assessment upon the applicant for the year ending April 5, 1913, in respect of profits arising from foreign possessions. On May 16, 1916, the applicant obtained a rule nisi directed to the Commissioners calling upon them to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not be awarded to prohibit them from proceeding upon the assessment upon the ground that the applicant was not a subject of the King nor resident within the United Kingdom and had not been in the United Kingdom, except for temporary purposes, nor with any view or intent of establishing her residence therein, nor for a period equal to six months in any one year. In the affidavit on which the rule was obtained the applicant stated that she was a French subject and resident in France and was not and had not been a subject of the United Kingdom nor a resident in the United Kingdom; that during the year ending April 5, 1913, she was in the United Kingdom for temporary purposes on visits for sixty-eight days; that she spent about twenty of these days in London at her brother's house, 213, King's Road, Chelsea, generally in company with other guests of her brother; that she was also in the United Kingdom during the year ending April 5, 1914, for temporary purposes on visits, and spent part of the time at 213, King's Road aforesaid; and that since the month of November, 1914, she had not been in the United Kingdom. 26. From the affidavits filed on behalf of the Commissioners and of the surveyor of taxes, who showed cause against the rule nisi, and from the affidavit of the applicant in reply, it appeared that in February, 1909, a leasehold house, 213, King's Road, Chelsea, had been taken in the name of the applicant's brother. The purchase-money for the lease of the house and the furniture amounted to 4000, and this was paid by the applicant out of her own money. The accounts of household expenses were paid by the brother and subsequently adjusted between him and the applicant. The purchase-money for the lease of the house and the furniture amounted to 4000, and this was paid by the applicant out of her own money. The accounts of household expenses were paid by the brother and subsequently adjusted between him and the applicant. The Divisional Court without dealing with the merits of the case discharged the rule on the ground that the applicant had suppressed or misrepresented the facts material to her application. The Divisional Court observed that the Court, for its own protection is entitled to say "we refuse this writ of prohibition without going into the merits of the case on the ground of the conduct of the applicant in bringing the case before us". 27. On appeal, Lord Cozens-Hardy M.R. and Warrington L.J. approved the view taken by the Divisional Court. Scrutton L.,J. who agreed that the appeal should be dismissed observed: "……and it has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts - facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it - the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement." 28. The abovenoted rules have been applied by this Court in large number of cases for declining relief to a party whose conduct is blameworthy and who has not approached the Court with clean hands - Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558 , Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P. (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Government of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261 , S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1 , A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221 , Prestige Lights Limited v. SBI (2007) 8 SCC 449 , Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326 , K.D. Sharma v. SAIL (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel (2009) 3 SCC 141 and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114 . 29. In the last mentioned judgment, the Court lamented on the increase in the number of cases in which the parties have tried to misuse the process of Court by making false and/or misleading statements or by suppressing the relevant facts or by trying to mislead the Court in passing order in their favour and observed: (Dalip Singh case (2010) 2 SCC 114 , SCC pp.116-17, paras 1-2) "1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final." (emphasis supplied) 30. In our view, the appellants are not entitled to any relief because despite strong indictment by this Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, they deliberately refrained from mentioning details of the cases instituted by them in respect of the land situated at Sadhora Khurd and rejection of their claim for exemption under clause (d) of notification dated 13.11.1959 by the High Court and this Court.” 37. The petitioner is not so naïve to feign ignorance regarding mode, manner and procedure of recruitment and selection after all it is running a professional college. But surprisingly still it has tried to justify the illegal appointments made (paragraph 16 supra). 38. The petition deserves to be dismissed not only it lacks merit, but also because the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any. The parties are left to bear their own costs.