Zeenath P.K. and others vs State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 7TH BHADRA, 1944 WA NO. 1309 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15504/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF** **KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 1 & 3 TO 6:** 1 ZEENATH P.K, AGED 48 YEARS D/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, THIRUVATHOOR KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, ERUVALLUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 616. 2 JAFAR.C.C, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, CHERANCHERI CHANATH HOUSE, ULLANAM NORTH, PARAPPANANGADI, PIN - 676 303. 3 SAKARIYA.C.V, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. KOYAMON, PERIYAPADAM HOUSE, CHETTIPADI PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 312. 4 NISHAD.M, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. KUNHI MOHAMMED, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, MURIKKAL ROAD, P.O ULLANAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -676 303. 5 SARITHA.A, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. VELAYUDHAN, VETTIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOZHAKKATTUR NORTH, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673639. BY ADVS. BABU KARUKAPADATH P.U.VINOD KUMAR ARYA RAGHUNATH VAISAKHI V. AJWIN P LALSON KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU P.LAKSHMI K.K.SAIDALAVI M.A.VAHEEDA BABU WA No.1309 of 2022 :2: ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (NOW DESIGNATED AS DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION), GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DPI JUNCTION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. 3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, KOTTAPPADY DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 678 001 4 JISHA.T, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. JAISON, KOZHIPURATH HOUSE, NEAR NEDUVA VAYANASALA, CHETTIPPADI P O, PIN - 676 319. 5 AKSHAYADAS.V.P, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. MURALI MOHANDAS. V.P, VALIYORAPURAKKAL, VALIYORA P.O, KACHERPADI, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM, DISTRICT, PIN 676 304. 6 VARUN.T, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, CHETTIPPADI P O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 319. 7 JITHU.A.V, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAKRISHNAN, ACHANVEETTIL PO, NEDUVA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 303. 8 RANJITH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. BALAN, KONDATH HOUSE, CHETTIPPADI P O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 676 319. 9 C.NISAR AHAMMED, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY, CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION, WA No.1309 of 2022 :3: PARAPPANANGADI MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 303, RESIDING AT PALATHINGAL, ULLANAM P O, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 303. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** BY GP SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WA No.1309 of 2022 :4: ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ** ## **------------------------------------------------------------------** WA No.1309 of 2022 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of August, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Mohammed Nias.C.P.J. After arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel for the appellant Smt.M.A.Vaheeda Babu seeks permission to withdraw the above writ appeal. Normally we would have straight away allowed the said request without probing further. 2. The appeal in the instant case was preferred by the writ petitioners aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petition that sought to challenge Ext.P4 notification which invited applications for selection to six different posts in the Parappanangadi Special Teachers Training Centre. The petitioners claimed that they were employed on contract basis after a selection process and that by Ext.P4, a fresh selection was attempted, which would result in the services of the petitioners being terminated. 3. The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition specifically found that the petitioners did not disclose the fact that they had applied on the basis of Ext.P4 notification for the post in question and though the writ petition was filed on 28.4.2022 WA No.1309 of 2022 :5: and had repeatedly been posted thereafter, the fact that the petitioners had participated in the interview conducted on 28.4.2022 and 30.4.2022 was not disclosed. The same was revealed only when the third respondent and respondents 4 to 8 and 9 pleaded the same. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition for suppressing their participation and also for the reason that they cannot maintain a writ petition after participating in the selection process. We notice that in spite of the said finding by the learned single Judge, there is no mention about the fact that they have participated in the selection process in the writ appeal also. When we put the same to the learned counsel, the explanation was that they have mentioned about the same in the additional affidavit filed in the writ petition, which is as follows:- “It is humbly submitted that, in the Writ Petition, the petitioners are not mentioned about their participation in the interview dated 28.4.2022. It is due to an inadvertent omission(error) not intentional, since apprehending termination, the petitioners approached this Hon'ble Court and in the midst of filing the Writ Petition hurriedly in the vacation bench, the above factual aspects mistakenly failed to incorporate in the Writ Petition. The petitioners seek unconditional apology in the matter and the inconvenience caused in this regard is deeply regretted.” 4. We are not prepared to accept the submission made above. The participation in the selection being a very relevant fact has not been divulged and the same is nothing but a suppression of material fact. This fact came to light, only when the respondents WA No.1309 of 2022 :6: pleaded the same in their counter affidavits. Still worse, no grounds were taken dealing with the said factum in the writ appeal. As held by the Supreme Court in **K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authoriity of India Limited and others** [2018 (12) SCC 481] “As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play `hide and seek' or to `pick and choose' the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in the disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, "the Court knows law but not facts". an applicant who does not come with candid facts and `clean breast' cannot hold a writ of the Court with `soiled hands'. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the Court, the Court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the Court does not reject the petition on that ground, the Court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of Court for abusing the process of the Court. “ WA No.1309 of 2022 :7: 5. It is trite that it is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of the case and leave the decision making to the court. In the petitions filed before the Courts, special care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. A person who does not do so is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and the object underlying the said principle is that every court is not only entitled but duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who pollute the stream of justice by resorting to false or misstatements or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on the adjudication of the issues arising in the case. The litigant does not have a choice to conceal any material fact and leave it to the court to determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not adhered to the above discipline in the instant case and must suffer the consequences thereof. In the face of such suppression of a material fact, there was no requirement at all for the learned single Judge to consider the matter on merits. Thus, we hold that this is eminently a fit case where exemplary costs must be imposed on the appellants/writ petitioners. Taking note of the fact that the writ appeal is sought to be withdrawn after arguing for some time and after we expressed our displeasure, we restrict the costs to an amount of Rs.5,000/- each payable to respondents 4 to 9 thus WA No.1309 of 2022 :8: totalling to Rs.30,000/- within a period of two weeks from today. On that condition, permission is granted to withdraw the writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn subject to the above. Sd/- ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE** Sd/- **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE** dlk 30.8.2022