The clean hands doctrine and abuse of process of the court were central to the court's decision.

I have heard Mr. BK Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. DK Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr. Goswami, learned Govt Advocate, Assam appearing for respondent Nos 1 to 3.

2. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 18.5.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 3471 of 2001.

3. The apple of discord involved in this series of litigation was with regard to holding of the charge of the office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar. The fight is between the appellant and the respondent No.4. resulting into filing of series of civil rules, thereby multiplying the litigation and creating problems instead of resolving the dispute.

4. In civil rule WP (C) No. 1222 of 2001, an interim order was passed on 26.2.2001. The Writ Appeal No. 71 of 2001 challenging the order dated 26.2.2001, has been disposed of by the Division Bench on 5.3.2001. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed WP (C) No. 2643 of 2001, and the appellant was also arrayed as a party respondent. This Court in Misc Case No. 579/2001 passed an order of status quo with regard to the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar, on 25.4.2001.

5. It is stated by Mr. BK Sharma that the order dated 25.4.2001 being violated by another order dated 26.4.2001 passed by the respondents, the appellant was compelled to file the present WP (C) No. 3471 of 2001. This fact has been deprecated by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the writ petitioner has not approached the Court with a clean hand.

6. We entirely agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge, because in WP (C) No. 2643 of 2001 which is pending for disposal, the writ petitioner, in WP (C) No. 3471 of 2001 was arrayed as a party respondent. If any status quo order passed on 25.4.2001 has been violated by passing another order dated 26.4.2001, which was the subject matter in WP (C) No. 3471 of 2001, two courses were open to the appellant. He could have either filed a contempt petition or bring it to the notice of this Court in WP (C) No. 2643 of 2001. Instead of doing that, he has filed another WP (C) No. 3471 of 2001 over the same subject matter which has been subjudice in WP (C) No. 2643 of 2001 with a motive to obtain another interim order.

7. In the facts and circumstances stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 18.5.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge. We, accordingly, dismiss this appeal. This order would not preclude the appellant to approach the learned Single Judge with an appropriate application for passing necessary orders in WP (C) No. 2643 of 2001.