( 1 ) THERE is material suppression and deliberate distortion of facts. Even when this is found as a matter of fact and the explanation given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner leads to no other inference but to deliberate distortion of facts and intentional suppression of relevant and important material would it be proper for the High Court to ignore and/or to condone the same ? Or is it incumbent upon the High Court to discharge its duty and pass an order which may appear to be unpleasant to the petitioner to the petitioners Advocates and perhaps to many others? In short there are two alternatives: Pragmatism leading to the glamorous goal of popularity. Or Devotion to duty coupled with allegiance to the oath of office.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is serving as English Section Writer in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.) and J. M. F. C. Visavadar district Junagadh. He was appointed on 28/11/1983 He alleged in the petition that his services have been terminated with effect from 4/05/1986 Intimation to this effect has been given to him by order dated 12/05/1986 It is contended in the petition that similarly situated employees are continued and therefore the order is not justified. In paras 4 and 6 of the petition the allegations have been made to the following effect:"the petitioner submits that the respondents ought to have followed the well settled principles of natural justice especially when the respondents are discharging the function of rendering justice to the society. That the order is arbitrary illegal. unjustified and in violation of the provisions of Arts 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. "in para 6 of the petition the same allegation is reiterated by stating that:"the respondents who are discharging the functions of advancement of cause of justice themselves have passed the impugned order without giving any show-cause notice to the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. "it is further submitted that the petitioner is discharging his duties over a period of about 22 years continuously and therefore he has acquired quasi-permanent status and his services could not have been put an end to in the manner alleged.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid allegations if true would and should shock the conscience of any judicial officer. Naturally therefore at the initial stage itself when the matter came up for preliminary hearing this Court issued notice and granted interim relief directing that the petitioner be permitted to discharge his duties and draw the salary as if the impugned order of termination is not passed at all. The aforesaid order of ad-interim relief was passed on 14/05/1986 Till now under the protection of the order of the Court the petitioner has continued in service.

( 4 ) ON record of the petition the learned Counsel for the respondents has produced parawise comments received from respondent No. 2 (District Judge Junagadh ). It is disclosed therein that the petitioner was appointed purely on ad hoc and temporary basis on a temporary post. The petitioner had accepted the service on condition that his services would be liable to be terminated without any prior notice and without assigning any reason. The petitioner had accepted the appointment by giving undertaking to that effect. The petitioner was discharged from service with effect from 15/06/1985 on account of abolition of the post but he was continued in service on leave vacancy posts till the impugned order was passed

( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid position the learned Counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain as to why he has not stated in the petition that the petitioner was appointed on purely ad hoc and temporary basis on temporary post. He boldly replied as if he was exhibiting the skill of drafting petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution that nowhere in the petition he has stated that he was appointed on permanent basis nor has he stated that he was appoin