Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. In CWJC No. 2588 of 2012, the petitioner Amarnath Keshari has assailed the impugned order passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Araria (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) dated 29.01.2012 passed in case No. 18 of 2009, whereas in the connected CWJC No. 14810 of 2013 the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha has sought a direction for his appointment on the basis of the said order of the Tribunal which has been impugned by the petitioner Amarnath Keshari in CWJC No. 2588 of 2012.

3. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner Amarnath Keshari, has submitted that the order of the Tribunal suffers from two apparent errors, namely that it did not decide the main question as with regard to the complaint of the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha being not maintainable before the Tribunal in view of rejection of his earlier complaint by the prescribed authority namely B.D.O., Farbisganj vide his order dated 20.5.2008. Secondly according to him, the Tribunal ought to have examined the records relating to selection and appointment of the post of Panchayat Teacher in question from which it could have become clear that petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha had actually made a forgery in his original application Annexure-B simply with a view to become a candidate of backward category though his case was confined to consideration amongst the general category.

4. Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha, does not dispute this fact that Narendra Kumar Jha had initially moved against the selection and appointment of the petitioner Amarnath Keshari before the then prescribed authority namely, the Block Development Officer in the year 2008, but then, he was never made aware of the final disposal of such complaint by the Block Development Officer Forbesganj inasmuch as he was never given any opportunity of hearing by the aforesaid prescribed authority Mr. Pramod Mishra has also explained that the petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha in absence of his original application and having a custody only its photocopy cannot be held guilty committing any forgery inasmuch as such interpolation in the original application of Narendra Kumar Jha was made by Mukhia and Panchayat Secretary in order to appoint petitioner Amarnath Kesari who had admittedly lesser marks than petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the remedy of writ jurisdiction is for only such persons who would approach this Court with clean hands. Once this Court has found that petitioner Narendra Kumar Jha had tried to produce a truncated forged document by filing his supplementary counter affidavit, it will have no difficulty in holding that Narendra Kumar Jha is not a person fit to be given any relief in writ jurisdiction. In this regard, it has to be kept in mind that when such serious things came to the notice of this Court, repeated opportunities were given to Narendra Kumar Jha, as would be evident from the order of this Court dated 18.11.2013 which reads as follows:

“While this case was listed today for dictating the orders, learned counsel for the respondent no. 12 has filed a supplementary counter affidavit, enclosing Annexure-R-1 purportedly to be a copy of his original application filed by respondent no. 12 seeking appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The said affidavit in Paragraph 5 contains a specific declaration of the respondent no. 12 that the Annexure is the photo/true copy of its original. This affidavit has been sworn by the respondent no. 12 on 18.11.2013 i.e. today but learned counsel for the respondent no. 12, on being asked to produce the original/photo/true copy of the Annexure-R-1, has submitted that the same may be with the respondent no. 12, who having sworn the affidavit today at 10:30 A.M., has gone back either to his home or anywhere else in Patna.

Having regard to the fact that the counsel for the responden