IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA th ON THE 20 OF NOVEMBER, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 33522 of 2024 MOHINEE VERMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Ms. Jayati Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri A. S. Baghel - Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Allow this Petition with costs, and (ii) Kindly Please to Direct the Respondent No.02 and 04 for the Joining/appointment to the present petitioner on the post of Community Health Officer at the allotted place in result list. (iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner."

2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the drive initiated by the respondents for appointment to the post of Community Health Officer. The petitioner applied for the same and was selected. Thereafter, joining has not been given to the petitioner. Therefore, she has approached the authorities by way of filing representations. The same has not been decided till date. Therefore, she has filed this petition before this Court.

3. However, after going through the records and as pointed out by the State counsel that the petitioner has not been selected which is apparent from Signature Not Verified document Annexure A/2 wherein the name of the petitioner finds place on page 15 at Roll No.313713758 Mohinee Verma, d/o Radhe Shyam Verma, Female OBC candidate, and in the last result remark column it is mentioned 'Not Selected'. The fact remains that the argument advanced before this Court is that she is a selected candidate and attempt has been made to demonstrate her name at page No.16 of the compilation at serial No.169.

4. Therefore, it is a case where an attempt has been made to misguide the Court pointing out the fact that the petitioner is a selected candidate.

5. When the petitioner counsel was confronted with the fact that the petitioner's name find place at page 15 under the category of 'Not Selected' candidates, she could not explain under what circumstances the prayer for a direction to decide the representation on the ground that petitioner is a selected candidate, was made before this Court.

6. It is a clear case of suppression of facts. No where in the petition memo it is mentioned that the petitioner is a non-selected candidate.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arunima Baruah vs Union of India reported in (2007) 6 SCC 120, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that suppression must be of 'material' fact. It was observed -

"10. On the one hand, judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, on the other, it provides for a discretionary remedy. Access to justice is a human right. (See Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal [(2003) 6 SCC 230] and Bhagubhai Dhanabhai Khalasi v. State of Gujarat [(2007) 4 SCC 241 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 260 : (2007) 5 Scale 357].) A person who has a grievance against a State, a forum must be provided for redressal thereof. (See Hatton v. United Kingdom [15 BHRC 259]. For reference see also Zee Telefilms Ltd. v.

Union of India [(2005) 4 SCC 649].)

11. The court's jurisdiction to determine the lis between the parties, therefore, may be viewed from the human rights concept of access to Signature Not Verified justice. The same, however, would not mean that the court will have no jurisdiction to deny equitable relief when the complainant does not approach the court with a pair of clean hands; but to what extent such relief should be denied is the question.

12. It is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must be of material fact. What would be a material fact, suppression whereof would disentitle the appellant to obtain a discretionary relief, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of eac