ORDER : 1. Petitioner being an Assistant Professor absorbed in the service of 2nd respondent Institute of Nephro-Urology is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing condition No. 3 in the Absorption Order dated 08.02.2018, at Annexure-A, whereby she is made to forego her pre-absorption service and consequently to take her ranking below other employees already borne on the cadre of the text of the said condition being in Kannada reads as under: Others Language 2. In view of the impugned condition, the Final Seniority List dated 02.04.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-R, has been prepared by the Institute disregarding petitioner’s pre-absorption service and therefore, she has sought for it’s quashing as well and for a consequential direction to count her entire service rendered in the Institute prior to absorption, for the purpose of seniority/ranking. 3. After service of notice, the 1st respondent-State has entered appearance through the learned AGA, the respondents 2 and 3 being the management of the Institute are represented by their Panel Counsel; learned private counsel appear for respondent nos. 4 to 7 who are all private contestants, whose names figure in the Seniority List. Though the matter is listed in the Orders List, the same is taken up for final disposal on the request of all the counsel. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri M.S. Bhagwat vehemently contends that: (i) the impugned Condition in the Absorption Order being bad in law, is liable to be struck down and petitioner be entitled to have her pre-absorption service (i.e. her deputation service from 12.09.2013) in the Institute counted for the purpose of seniority. (ii) the absorption being a recognized mode of appointment under the extant Service Rules of the Institute, the pre-absorption service cannot be ignored and the impugned condition to the contrary thus being unsustainable, needs to be voided. (iii) lastly, in terms of the extant policy, the respondent-Institute having absorbed the services of other similarly circumstanced teachers, has counted their pre-absorption service for the purpose of seniority and therefore petitioner cannot be singled out for a step-motherly treatment in the absence of any derogatory factor, the contra position contravening the Equality Clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the State, learned Panel Counsel for the Institute and the advocates representing the private respondents resist the writ petition contending that: (i) petitioner is liable to be non-suited for suppressing her affidavit wherein she had agreed to take her seniority down below that of the members of the teaching staff already borne on the cadre of the Institute. (ii) petitioner having taken the benefit of Absorption Order subject to the impugned condition, now cannot turn around and lay a challenge thereto, the claim of the petitioner for relief is hit by doctrine of estoppel or the like. (iii) petitioner’s version that the pre-absorption services of other similarly circumstanced teachers has been counted, whereas that of her is not, is misleading, to say the least. (iv) petitioner on her own request got the deputation and later, she got her services absorbed again on request and therefore, going by the Seniority Rules she has to take her ranking below other employees borne on the cadre. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: (a) SUPRESSIO VERI: The contention of the respondents that petitioner is liable to be non-suited on the ground that she has approached the Writ Court without disclosing a material fact is substantiated by the production of a copy of her undisputed affidavit dated 06.12.2017 on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- at Annexure-R- 2-R, Clause (c) whereof reads as under: Others Language Petitioner who is highly qualified doctor and holding a coveted post of Assistant Professor, in the prestigious institute ought not to have suppressed this fact; thus, in withholding this material fact, she is unfair not only to her opponents in the case but to the Writ Court as well; such a person is disentitled to the grant of any relief in the extraordinary jurisdiction constitutionally vested in this Court the Apex Court vide K.R. Shinivas vs. R.M. Premchand, (1994) 6 SCC 620 has observed that a litigant invoking the writ jurisdiction should come to court with clean hands, clean head and clean heart, countenancing an argument to the contrary would amount to placing premium on the violation of this basic rule of judicial process. (b) Acquiescence: As already stated above, petitioner came to be absorbed in the service of the Institute on request and subject to the impugned condition that her pre-absorption service would not be counted; this condition arguably is stipulated for protecting the seniority of those who were already borne on the cadre of the Institute as regular employees; petitioner having acquiesced in the said stipulation by taking benefit of absorption order, cannot now turn around and lay a challenge to thereto, vide Indu Shekar Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 129 , as rightly contended by the advocates for the respondents. (c) Unconscionability: Petitioner’s reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Attar Singh Koushik vs. Secretary/Commissioner, (2008) 1 SCC 400 does not come to her aid since the issue in question there was covered by a statutory rule specifically providing for the reckoning of pre-absorption service (vide Para 25 of the decision) and this important factor obviously lacking in petitioner’s case makes a sea difference to the invocability of it’s ratio; this apart, the stand of the petitioner is unconscionable; a contra argument if accepted, amounts to permitting an employee to blow hot and cold depending upon what suits her interest, to the detriment of others. (d) Deputation and absorption, both on request: petitioner having served as Assistant Surgeon in the Government came to the respondent-Institute on deputation w.e.f. 12.09.2013 in fact, the respondent- Institute at Para 15 of its Statement of Objections dated 29.03.2019 contends “the deputation of the petitioner was on her own request but not on (sic) public interest” such a person on being absorbed again on request, cannot as a matter of right be permitted to march over the seniority of other employees already borne on the cadre; this is consistent with the first proviso to Rule 6 of Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, which reads as under: “Provided that, where the transfer is made at the request of the officer, he shall be placed in the seniority list of the class or grade of service to which he is transferred below all the officers borne on that class or grade of service on or before the date of the transfer.” (e) Petitioner not discriminated: petitioner’s complaint that similarly circumstanced employees have been given the benefit of pre-absorption service per se is not substantiated by her reliance on the Government Order dated 29.11.2008 at Annexure-H the said Order itself states: “The Government are pleased to accord sanction in the interest of public service for the permanent absorption of teaching staff.....with retrospective effect from the date on which they reported at the Institute....” certain concessions are conceded to the teaching staff on deputation so that they continue as teachers in the Institute, lest, they should go back to their parent organization; the text and context of petitioner’s Absorption Order are in variance with the said Order; power to appoint by absorption ordinarily includes power to make appointment subject to conditions, in the absence of the rules providing to the contrary; therefore, the allegation as to discrimination is unsustainable. (f) “Option” versus “Request” the Government Order dated 29.11.2008 at Annexure-H wherein the seven teachers are enlisted mentions that these teachers had “opted” for absorption into the service of the Institute; when an option is given to an employee for absorption, it is not a case of request for absorption; there is a certain legal and literal difference between the words ‘option’ and ‘request’ they are not synonyms and therefore, their employment in the text will have different consequences; thus, the case of absorption on request and the case of absorption with option cannot be treated on par with each other; the contention that in either case the Government takes decision in the interest of public service and therefore, in the matter of fixing seniority they stand on the same footing falls foul of the proviso to Rule 6 of KGS Seniority Rules, whose invocability is not in dispute. (g) Absorption as mode of appointment the contention of the petitioner that the Service Rules of the respondent-Institute inter-alia prescribe absorption as one of the modes of appointment and the petitioner, accordingly having been appointed is entitled to have her pre-absorption service counted, is bit difficult to accept; absorption is a mode of recruitment is true of Service Rules; but there is nothing repugnant in stipulating a condition that an employee seeking absorption has to take his ranking in the seniority list below that of the employees already borne on the cadre; Service Jurisprudence is replete with such instances; nobody compelled the petitioner to absorption and she did it on her own volition; there was a long gap between petitioner’s undertaking dated 04.12.2017 to forego her seniority and her actual absorption dated 08.02.2018; she had every opportunity to withdraw her undertaking or reserve a right to challenge the stipulation; but the petitioner who is a highly qualified Assistant Professor in Public Service since long, knowledgably chose not to do either of them; that being so, the contention of the kind now advanced does not avail to her. (h) Absorption in different employment: if a public servant is deputed to any organization under the administrative control of the Government, and later is absorbed in the said organization on request, his pre-absorption service ordinarily would not be reckoned for the purpose of seniority qua the employees already borne on the cadre of the borrowing organization, unless the Service Rules otherwise provide; an employee on deputation to autonomous bodies has an option to come back to his parent department; if he opts for absorption of his service in the post to which he is deputed, he has to forego his pre-absorption service, since the deputation here is not from one department of the Government to the other, but it is from one employer to another, the fact matrix of this case, more or less, is similar to that in Dr. C. Renukaprasad vs. State and Others, ILR 2000 Kar. 2256, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the pre-absorption service would not count for seniority qua the existing employees of the cadre; this ratio broadly applies to the case of petitioner with more force since she has not only requested for absorption but had consciously given an undertaking on affidavit to give up her pre-absorption service. 7. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable to the respondent-Institute.