2015 (12) TMI 1191 - HC - Indian Laws

Posting of service outside Home District - Challenge to Appellant s transfer from CHC Juan, Sonepat to CHC Taraori, Karnal - for a period of about 29 years, the petitioner has remained posted outside her Home District and was never posted in her Home District i.e. Sonepat - Held that - Since 06.07.2011 till 17.03.2015, the petitioner has been serving at CHC Juan, Sonepat (on deputation). This fact was admitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. - law is settled that any person, who does not come to the Court with clean hands, does not deserve any relief. The petitioner too, having not come to this Court with clean hands, has disentitled herself to be granted any relief. - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of transfer from CHC Juan, Sonepat to CHC Taraori, Karnal by an Auxiliary Nurse Mid-wife (ANM) serving the State of Haryana.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grounds for Challenge:
The petitioner, an ANM, challenged her transfer from CHC Juan, Sonepat to CHC Taraori, Karnal, citing that she had been posted outside her Home District for about 29 years. The petitioner emphasized this fact during arguments as the main ground for challenge.

2. Clean Hands Doctrine:
The State of Haryana's written statement revealed that the petitioner had been serving at CHC Juan, Sonepat (on deputation) from 06.07.2011 to 17.03.2015, contradicting her claim of never being posted in her Home District. The court held that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands, citing various judgments condemning suppression of facts.

3. Precedents on Suppression of Facts:
The judgment referred to various cases where suppression of material facts led to the dismissal of petitions. Notable cases include Pawan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, Jai Singh Rathi vs. State of Haryana, and Chiranji Lal vs. Financial Commissioner Haryana. These cases emphasized the importance of full disclosure of facts to the court.

4. Suppression of Facts and Relief:
The Apex Court's ruling in Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. highlighted that parties not approaching the court with clean hands could be non-suited. The court observed that misleading or inaccurate statements in a petition amount to an abuse of the court's process, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

5. Court's Discretion and Full Disclosure:
In Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court emphasized that litigants invoking the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 must provide all facts without reservation. The court of equity may refuse to entertain a petition if there is suppression or distortion of material facts, as it hampers the functioning of the writ courts.

6. Final Decision:
Considering the petitioner's failure to approach the court with clean hands, the court dismissed the writ petition, following the established legal principles. The petitioner's lack of full disclosure and suppression of facts led to the denial of relief, and the petition was ordered to be dismissed without costs.