A petitioner must disclose all relevant facts in litigation; failure to do so can result in dismissal of claims, highlighting the clean hands doctrine.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for respondents- 2 to 6.

2. Petitioner has not disclosed in specific words that how he entered in Allahabad University i.e. he has not disclosed specifically that he was initially appointed as a Research Fellow (JRF/SRF) in Department of Philosophy in 1992. Petitioner has not annexed any document to that effect, though during argument, some other documents were referred which indicate that he was an Research Fellow in the said Department.

3. The averments in writ petition commence with an assertion that petitioner and other similarly situated Research Fellows were engaged classes apart from their own duties in Department vide a notification dated 18.01.1992 and he has declared that after 19.01.1992, he was assigned work of teaching on regular basis. For reference, referred notification dated 18.01.1992 issued by Head of Philosophy Department, Allahabad University is quoted hereinafter :-

“All JRFs, SRFs, Research scholars are required to engage classes as per time table, apart from their other duties in the department.”

4. A case is set up by the petitioner and vehemently submitted by learned Senior Advocate that by imparting instructions in classes, petitioner would be a ‘teacher’ as defined under Section 2(19) of U.P. State University Act, 1973. For reference, said provision is quoted below :-

“2 (19) 'teacher' in relation to the provisions of this Act except Chapter XI-A, means a person employed in a University or in an institute or in a constituent or affiliated or associated college of a University for imparting instructions or guiding or conducting research in any subject or course approved by that University and includes a Principal or Director.”

5. Learned Senior Advocate has also referred para 10.02 of the Statute and its provision that persons working as Research Fellow or Research Assistants may be called upon to act as ‘part time teacher’ and therefore, he submitted that since petitioner has started taking classes since 19.01.1992 soon after notification dated 18.01.1992, he would also be considered as ‘part time teacher’. For reference, said paragraph is reproduced hereinafter :-

“10.02 Teachers of the University shall be appointed in the subjects on whole time basis in the scales of pay approved by the State Government:

Provided that part time lecturers may be appointed in subjects in which in the opinion of the Academic Council such lecturers are required in the interest of teaching or for other reasons. Such part time lecturers may receive salary ordinarily not exceeding one half of the initial salary or the scale for the post to which they are appointed. Persons working as Research Fellows or as Research Assistants may be called upon to act as part time lecturers.”

6. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the petitioner was a ‘part time teacher’ since 1992 and, therefore, as he would be within cut off date (31.12.1997) and accordingly, he was entitled for substantive appointment without reference to the Selection Committee and for that learned Senior Advocate has referred Section 31(3)(c