Judgment Tashi Rabstan, J.—This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.06.2018, passed by the learned Writ Court in SWP No.724/2012, titled Dr. Abdul Rehman Mir vs. State of J&K & others. 2. From the perusal of the file as also the impugned judgment it shows that the writ petitioner/respondent had been appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the year 1989 and adjusted in District Udhampur. It is contended by the writ petitioner/respondent in his writ petition that he underwent Junior Residency at Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) and was selected for undergoing Post Graduate Course in Surgery at SKIMS and thereafter he was selected as Stipendiary Senior Resident in the discipline of Surgery and its allied specialty in the year 1998. It had also been claimed by the writ petitioner/respondent in his writ petition before the Writ Court that he was recommended for appointment as Registrar in the discipline of Surgery, but, he could not join the tenure post of Registrar as the same was stayed by the Court and it was only after the stay order was vacated that he was relieved from SKIMS, so as to allow him to join as Registrar in the Department of General Surgery at Government Medical College, Srinagar. It had also been contended by the writ petitioner/respondent before the learned Writ Court that he completed three years’ Registrarship in the year 2002 and he, accordingly, submitted his joining report on 17.06.2002 and waited for his suitable adjustment, but, a show-cause notice was issued to him, to which he submitted a detailed reply. 3. It was also contended before the learned Writ Court that in terms of Government Order No.133-H&ME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003, the writ petitioner was allowed to join the department as a “fresh appointee”. He accepted and acted upon the said order and joined the department. For the next ten years, the writ petitioner discharged his duty in the department and remained calm and quiet. However, after a decade, the writ petitioner/respondent filed a writ petition (SWP no.724/2012), in which he sought grant of writ of certiorari to quash his Appointment Order (Government Order No.133-H&ME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003) to the extent of treating him as a fresh appointee. However, after a decade, the writ petitioner/respondent filed a writ petition (SWP no.724/2012), in which he sought grant of writ of certiorari to quash his Appointment Order (Government Order No.133-H&ME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003) to the extent of treating him as a fresh appointee. The writ petitioner also prayed for a direction to writ-respondents/appellants to treat the “period of absence” of the writ petitioner, if any, in accordance with the Rules and count the period from the year 1989 to 2003 towards his seniority and give him all the service benefits. 4. The Reply was filed by the appellants/writ-respondents before the learned Writ Court. The appellants-writ respondents disputed the contentions made in writ petition contending therein that the writ petitioner/respondent was holding the post of Assistant Surgeon and while working at A.D. Sangaldan, he was granted NOC for undergoing the Post-Graduation, for one year at SKIMS, Soura, on 02.03.1993, but, after completion of one year, the writ petitioner-respondent did not resume his duties and sought NOC for undergoing the Registrarship in Surgery at SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, which was not granted to him, and he did not report back to the Department and chose to remain absent unauthorizedly from the duty. A show cause notice was issued upon him. It was also submitted by appellants/writ respondents that writ petitioner remained absent for 05 years. It was also contended by the writ respondents that request of the writ petitioner was, however, considered and he was permitted to rejoin the department as a “fresh appointee”, which offer he accepted and he, accordingly, joined the department as a “fresh appointee”. 5. The learned Writ Court in terms of the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition and quashed the Appointment Order of writ petitioner (Government Order No.133-H&ME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003) to the extent it treated the writ petitioner as a fresh appointee and directed the appellants/writ respondents to count service of the writ petitioner rendered from the year 1989 to 2003 and restore his seniority at an appropriate place by reckoning his previous service and consequent thereto grant all the service benefits to the writ petitioner to which he is entitled to. The appellants/writ respondents are aggrieved of the said judgment and pray for its setting-aside on the grounds taken in the appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The appellants/writ respondents are aggrieved of the said judgment and pray for its setting-aside on the grounds taken in the appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants/writ respondents has submitted that the writ petitioner had been a government employee and his services were regulated by the Service Rules and therefore, he could not have remained absent from duty to pursue the higher education. It is contended that the writ petitioner/respondent was given NOC for undergoing P.G. for one year at SKIMS, but, without resuming his duties, he on his own volition took up the assignment as Registrar in SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, for which he had not even bothered to obtain a prior permission from his employer/competent authority. This submission of learned counsel for appellants/writ respondents has force. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the writ petitioner was given only one year’s permission for undergoing the Post-Graduation. On expiry of one year, he did not report to his department/employer, which he was, otherwise, required as a prudent and disciplined employee. Without joining the duties, without entering the office/department, and thereafter without getting his file/case approved for permission from the competent authority to undergo further studies or any other venture he on his own did whatever he would like, including taking the job/assignment of Registrarship. The writ petitioner had not placed on the writ record any permission granted by the respondent-Health Department to demonstrate or suggest that he was allowed to take the job/assignment of Registrarship. This important aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the learned Writ Court while passing the impugned judgment. 9. A person upon joining the government service is required not only to conform to a system of the rules of conduct enjoined upon him by the Government in discharge of his official duties, but, also observe certain standards of dignity, discipline and decorum in relation to his dealings with and duties to the public and even his private life. If the writ petitioner is permitted all that he has done, it will, obviously, create precedence for all the government employees, particularly doctors, to indulge in such acts and get scot free. If the writ petitioner is permitted all that he has done, it will, obviously, create precedence for all the government employees, particularly doctors, to indulge in such acts and get scot free. The writ petitioner cannot be heard saying that for undergoing higher studies or taking any assignment/job, he was not required to have prior permission from his employer/competent authority or that his mere intimation to the department amounts to grant of permission by the competent authority to do whatever a government servant likes or chooses. The admitted fact of the case in hand is that the writ petitioner was not given any permission beyond one year. The important aspect of the matter is that the respondent/writ petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from duty and did not work or discharge his duties in the appellant-department. 10. The writ petitioner in paragraph 03 of the writ petition has claimed that he was given the No Objection Certificate by the Department to undergo the Post Graduate Course. The relevant part of the paragraph 03 is reproduced as under: “03. That after completion of Junior Residency the petitioner was selected for undergoing Post-Graduate Course in Surgery at SKIMS and in order to allow the petitioner to undergo the Post Graduate Course, the Respondent no.1 was pleased to grant no objection in favour of the petitioner so as to allow him to complete his Post Graduate Course in Surgery at SKIMS. Document evidencing the fact is placed on record as Annexure-C……...” 11. The writ petitioner in the writ petition has placed reliance on No Objection Certificate – Annexure C, which according to him had given him licence to remain unauthorizedly absent from duty for next three years or till he joined the department as a “fresh appointee”. It is important to reproduce Annexure C of the writ petition hereunder: “Government of Jammu and Kashmir Health and Medical Education Department *** Subject: - No Objection to do post-graduate in favour of Dr. Ab. Rehman Mir, Asstt. Surgeon, A.D. Sangaldan. … The Government of J&K has no objection if Dr. Ab. Rehman Mir Assistant Surgeon of J&K Medical Department Service, undergoes post-graduate course at Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Sgr. This will not involve any financial commitment on behalf of the State Government and the period aforementioned will be treated as leave of whatever kind is due to him excluding the study leave. Ab. Rehman Mir Assistant Surgeon of J&K Medical Department Service, undergoes post-graduate course at Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Sgr. This will not involve any financial commitment on behalf of the State Government and the period aforementioned will be treated as leave of whatever kind is due to him excluding the study leave. The Certificate is valid for a period of one year from the date of issue. Sd/- Addl. Secretary to Govt. Health and Medical Education Deptt.” 12. From perusal of Annexure C to the writ petition it reveals that the writ petitioner was given one year’s leave and nothing else. The writ petitioner/respondent, at that material point of time, ought to have approached the department and pursued them to extend the leave period. However, the writ petitioner assumed and presumed as if he was given unconditional permission for all times to come. The No Objection, relied upon by the petitioner, per se, demonstrates that it was a simpliciter leave that too for one year from the date of its issuance or may be till completion of the course. The record does not show that there was any extension granted by the Department in favour of the writ petitioner beyond the course period. Annexure-C conveys the writ petitioner that there will not be any financial commitment on behalf of the State Government for the leave period. This important fact and aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the learned Writ Court; thus, the impugned judgement on this count is liable to be set-aside as well. 13. Moreso, the services of the respondent/writ petitioner are also governed by the J&K Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1979. Its Rule 61 provides that the study leave may be granted to a government servant with due regard to the exigencies of the public service to enable him to undergo in or out of India a special course of study consisting of the higher studies or specialized training in a professional or technical subject having a direct and close connection with the sphere of his duty. Rule 62 provides that the maximum amount of the study leave, which may be granted to a government servant shall be ordinarily twelve months at any one time and during his entire service twenty-four months in all, inclusive of the similar kind of leave for the study or the training granted under any other rules. Rule 62 provides that the maximum amount of the study leave, which may be granted to a government servant shall be ordinarily twelve months at any one time and during his entire service twenty-four months in all, inclusive of the similar kind of leave for the study or the training granted under any other rules. Rule 63 provides that every application for the study leave shall be submitted through proper channel to the authority competent to grant the leave. The course or courses of the study contemplated by the government servant and any examination which he proposes to undergo shall be clearly specified in such application. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 63, which applies to the case in hand, provides that where it is not possible for the government servant to give the full details in his application or if after leaving India, he is to make any change in the programme which has been approved in India, he shall submit the particulars as soon as possible to the Head of the Mission or the authority competent to grant leave as the case may be and shall not unless prepared to do so at his own risk, commence the course of study or incur any expenses in connection therewith until he receives the approval of the authority competent to grant the study leave for the course. Sub Rule 4(a) of Rule 64 provides that on completion of the course of the study, the government servant shall submit to the authority which granted him the study leave, the certificates of examination passed or the special courses of the study undertaken, indicating the date of the commencement and the termination of the course with their remarks, if any, of the authority incharge of the course of the study. However, in the present case, the respondent/writ petitioner has not submitted after completion of the P.G. Course, the certificates of the said course, indicating the date of the commencement and the termination of the P.G. Course. Nothing has been placed on the writ record by the respondent/writ petitioner in this regard. Thus, the respondent/writ petitioner has violated the basics of the Service Rules governing his services. 14. Nothing has been placed on the writ record by the respondent/writ petitioner in this regard. Thus, the respondent/writ petitioner has violated the basics of the Service Rules governing his services. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the writ petitioner was holding a civil post and without taking recourse to the mode prescribed for terminating the services of an employee, who has remained on unauthorized absence, the appellant-department has treated the writ petitioner as a fresh appointee, which under law is impermissible. When the relation of an employee and employer exists, the employer has no right to treat his employee as a fresh appointee. We may mention here that was not it an obligation and duty of the writ petitioner to resume his duties after completion of the course; was not it the responsibility and duty of the writ petitioner, after resuming the duties, to apply seek permission from competent authority for taking the assignment/job of Registrarship or any other assignment. The writ record shows that the writ petitioner after completion of the P.G. Course has never joined the appellant-department. He, upon completion of the P.G. Course in SKIMS Soura, was relieved by the authorities of SKIMS on 16.10.1997 vide order No.172 of 1997 – Annexure D with the writ petition. He on next day, i.e., 17.10.1997 again joined SKIMS as Junior Resident, which fact is evident from Office Order No.ACAD/80 of 1997 dated 21.10.1997 – Annexure E to the writ petition. He has not placed on the writ record any piece of paper that he applied through Proper Channel and his application was forwarded by appellant-department to SKIMS. He has not placed on the writ record any document to substantiate that permission was granted in his favour to take the assignment/job of Junior Residentship. The writ petitioner has not placed on the writ record any document to show that he was relieved by the appellant-department to join as Junior Resident in the SKIMS. The matter does not end here. The writ petitioner even after completion of the Junior Residentship did not bother to report to appellant-department. He further went ahead. He applied for Senior Residentship. He has not placed on the writ record that he applied for Senior Residentship through Proper Channel. The matter does not end here. The writ petitioner even after completion of the Junior Residentship did not bother to report to appellant-department. He further went ahead. He applied for Senior Residentship. He has not placed on the writ record that he applied for Senior Residentship through Proper Channel. The writ petitioner has not annexed with the writ record any piece of evidence to substantiate that the permission was granted by the appellant-department in his favour for taking the assignment/job of Senior Residentship in SKIMS. Thereafter the writ petitioner on his own volition went for the Registrarship. Here again, the writ petitioner did not report to the appellant-department for resuming his duties. The writ petitioner did not apply through Proper Channel. The writ petitioner did not seek any permission from appellant-department to take the assignment of the Registrarship. The writ petitioner was not relieved by appellant-department, then how he can be treated like other employees/doctors, who during this period had first applied through proper channel, sought permission from appellant-department and were properly relieved by the appellant-department for taking such assignments. When show cause notice was issued to initiate proceedings under law against him, he requested to allow him to rejoin the department in terms of Government Order No.183-HME of 2000 dated 07.04.2000, which request was considered and accepted, which culminated in issuance of the Government Order No.133-HME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003, whereunder the petitioner was allowed to rejoin the appellant-department as a fresh appointee as Assistant Surgeon and was directed to report to the Director, Health Services. He accepted to be a fresh appointee and remained satisfied for next ten years. After inordinate delay and laches of a decade, he came up with the writ petition. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner cannot be heard saying that he was immune to these statutory obligations that were cast upon him when he joined the government service. His conduct reflects his non-seriousness towards his job and profession. He as a doctor holds a pious position. He cannot act like an ordinary man who does not know nitty-gritty of a responsible doctor. Even as on today a doctor is a respectable person in our society than any very important personality. The doctor has traditionally enjoyed a special status in any society, and there are high ethical and legal requirements. He cannot act like an ordinary man who does not know nitty-gritty of a responsible doctor. Even as on today a doctor is a respectable person in our society than any very important personality. The doctor has traditionally enjoyed a special status in any society, and there are high ethical and legal requirements. It is believed that a “real” doctor should be a role model for the general public not only in the matters of health, but also morality. Thus, a doctor is a responsible citizen in our country. 15. The unauthorized absence of the writ petitioner from duty was willful. There was no compelling circumstance given by the writ petitioner which prevented him from joining the services after completion of the P.G. Course. It may be added here that the doctors have a divine job to discharge, therefore, by conduct they are required to supply light so as to embrace into its fold respect to the faith and confidence reposed in the system by the public, particularly the patient care. Maintaining the highest standard of integrity can be more fragrant/cherished by maintaining the highest standard of sophistication, behaviour and attitude. Small deviation will make it ugly. 16. It may be noted that the employee who suffers break and discontinuation in the length of his service on account of his remaining unauthorizedly absent from duty cannot be given the benefit of seniority as the fall out of such an action would not only be illegal, but, would be illogical and unethical as well. Such an act will have the potential of affecting service rights of the employees, who faithfully obey the service rules. Employee committing misconduct cannot be permitted to steal a march over another employee who faithfully obeys service rules and performs duties without fail. A concession cannot be allowed to become a bonanza as that will encourage indiscipline in service. It is well settled law that courts cannot place such an interpretation on a rule or a word, which will create illegal and immoral situations. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has contended that the writ petitioner was not in a bargaining position as he was without salary for a period of more than nine months and he had not only to feed himself, but, his family as well, so he joined in pursuance of the Government Order bearing no.133-H&ME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has contended that the writ petitioner was not in a bargaining position as he was without salary for a period of more than nine months and he had not only to feed himself, but, his family as well, so he joined in pursuance of the Government Order bearing no.133-H&ME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003. It is contended that the respondent/writ petitioner immediately thereafter moved a representation for settlement of his period and not to treat him a fresh appointee. Non-consideration constrained him to again file a representation, he was under a bona fide belief that the final orders about the period in dispute would be passed, but, the appellant-department slept over the matter for some unknown and undisclosed reasons, so he filed the writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Writ Court. The learned counsel for respondent has relied upon Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd and anr. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and anr. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1571 . 18. To contradict the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent, Mr. Shah Aamir, learned AAG, appearing on behalf of appellants-writ respondents, has contended that persons seeking relief against the State under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be they citizens or otherwise, cannot get discretionary relief available thereunder unless they fully satisfy the Court that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly justified the laches or undue delay on their part in approaching the court for grant of such discretionary relief and therefore, where a Court grants relief to a citizen or any other person under Article 226 of the Constitution against any person including the State without considering his blameworthy conduct, such a laches or undue delay, acquiescence or waiver, the relief so granted becomes unsustainable even if the relief was granted in respect of alleged deprivation of his legal right by the State. Learned counsel has also contended that powers of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable, admits no controversy. Learned counsel has also contended that powers of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable, admits no controversy. It is for that reason, a person’s entitlement for relief from a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, be it against the State or anybody else, even it is founded on the allegation of infringement of his legal right, has to be necessarily depend upon unblameworthy conduct of the person seeking relief, and the court refused to grant the discretionary relief to such power, when he approaches it with unclean hands or blameworthy conduct. The learned counsel for appellants has relied upon Scooters India and ors Vs. Vijai E. V. Eldred reported in (1998) 6 SCC 549 ; State of Orissa vs. Lochan Naik (dead) by LRs reported in (2003) 10 SCC 678 ; Cheripalli Madar vs. Assistant Div. Engineers and ors reported in (2005) 11 SCC 546 ; Atta Mohammad (Dr) vs. State and ors reported in 2014 (1) JKJ 337 (HC). Submission of Mr Shah Aamir, learned AAG, has force. The writ petitioner acted upon the Government Order No.133-H&ME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003 and joined the appellant-department as a fresh appointee. If the writ petitioner was aggrieved of the Government Order No.133-H&ME of 2003 dated 20.02.2003, he could have after joining the appellant-department, if he felt to be on receiving end, sought redressal of his grievances. However, he remained silent for next ten years and thereafter came up with a writ petition. Such act on part of the writ petitioner cannot be overlooked. 19. The Supreme Court in Sudhi Vishnu Panvalkar vs. Bank of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 2248 , dismissed the writ petition which was filed after three years and six months after the order was passed. In the present case, the respondent/writ petitioner has filed the writ petition after ten years. Thus, such inordinate delay cannot and should not be overlooked. 20. In Scooters India and ors. vs. Vijai E. V. Eldered reported in 1998 (6) SCC 549 , the Apex Court has held that the writ petition, which has been filed six years after passing of the order, was not maintainable. Thus, such inordinate delay cannot and should not be overlooked. 20. In Scooters India and ors. vs. Vijai E. V. Eldered reported in 1998 (6) SCC 549 , the Apex Court has held that the writ petition, which has been filed six years after passing of the order, was not maintainable. Same ratio has been laid by the Apex Court in another case reported as State of Orissa vs. Lochan Nayak [ 2003 (10) SCC 678 ] and it was held by the Apex Court that the writ petition filed after the gap of three years was not maintainable and dismissed the same on the grounds of delay and laches. Same are the views of the Apex Court in Govt. of W.B. vs. Tarun K. Roy [ 2004 (1) SCC 347 ], Ghulam Rasool Lone vs. State of J&K [2009 (AIR) SCW 5260], including the view that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution may be denied on the ground of delay and laches. It is now well settled law that who claim equity must enforce his claim within a reasonable time. Even in Banda Development Authority vs. Moti Lal Agarwal reported as (2011) 5 SCC 394 , the Apex Court held that even if the objection of delay and laches had not been raised by the other-side, the High Court was duty bound to take cognizance of the long-time gap of nine years between the issue of declaration/order and filing of the writ petition, and declined the relief to the petitioner on the ground that he was guilty of laches. 21. The above well settled law is also squarely applicable to the case in hand. However, the learned Writ Court has not taken into account the above settled law while passing impugned judgment, which, therefore, requires to be set-aside. It is mentioned here that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not render any help to him. 22. We have noticed that the State Government has in fact conferred a benefit on the writ petitioner by allowing him to rejoin as a fresh appointee when as a matter of fact there were/are MBBS graduates and post-graduates available who are jobless. The writ petition of the respondent/writ petitioner requires to be dismissed on another ground. 22. We have noticed that the State Government has in fact conferred a benefit on the writ petitioner by allowing him to rejoin as a fresh appointee when as a matter of fact there were/are MBBS graduates and post-graduates available who are jobless. The writ petition of the respondent/writ petitioner requires to be dismissed on another ground. The laws are made and institutions are created to maintain the moral fabric of the society. The process of the Court of law cannot be allowed to be maneuvered on the basis of pleadings which are false and incorrect. In fact the message conveyed by all the laws whether constitutional or a local law is that the moral fabric of the society shall be maintained and shall not be permitted to be damaged. Every faith, philosophy and thought are based on one common concept that society be built on the foundation of ethics, morality and truthful values. The laws cannot be permitted to be misused and the process of the institutions, more particularly, of the court of law cannot be allowed to be abused. Anyone who approaches the court of law for seeking settlement of the dispute raised by him is duty bound to come to the court with clean hands and made a clean breast of all the facts. Laws neither favour nor disfavour the party, but only stand by truth. 23. Viewed thus, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 01.06.2018, passed by the learned Writ Court in SWP No.724/2012, titled Dr. Abdul Rehman Mir vs. State of J&K & others, is set aside. Resultantly, the writ petition filed by writ petitioner-respondent is dismissed.