JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 11-8-1997. An application for recalling the order has been filed on behalf of Dharmendra Nath Singh who has been transferred to Khariya Range.
2. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the said Dharmendra Nath Singh, respondent No. 5, contends that the petitioner being Class II Officer, the writ petition is cognizable by a Division Bench and would not have been decided by the Single Judge. He secondly contends that the order has been obtained by misleading this court on suppression of fact that the petitioner himself had been seeking to remain at Mayorpur that he did not handover the charge even on the date the order was passed.
3. Mr. S. C. Budhwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the scale of the post held by the petitioner is Class 'C' post as has been defined in Section 2 of U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Act, 1988. Referring to item No. 12 of the Group 'C' post in which said Act 1988 apply, specified in notification dated 25-11-1989, he contends that the post of Forest Ranger was in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- which is a Group 'C post. The said post of Forest Ranger was subsequently revised to Rs. 1640-2900 by notification dated 15-10-1994. According to him, the revision of scale does not take away the post from the classification of Group 'C post. Therefore, this writ petition is cognizable by Single Judge. He secondly contends that the said omission to disclose certain facts does not in any way affect the merit of the case and therefore there was no question of misleading this court. On the other hand, the petitioner is being harassed by successive transfers and therefore serious apprehension was there in the mind of the petitioner that he could be shifted out of the division, therefore, he had filed the said writ petition.
4. After having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the post of Forest Ranger is included in item No. 12 of the said notification dated 25-11-1989 to be a group 'C' post in which the said 1988 Act is applicable. The scale has been mentioned as Rs. 1400-2600 which has been subsequently revised by the notification dated 15-10-1994 to Rs. 1640-2900/-. Mr. R. K. Jain had referred to Annexure CA-1 by which the post of Forest Ranger has been declared as a Gazetted Post by a notification dated 21-9-1995. Subsequently by an order dated 5-8-1996 the pest of Forest Ranger was declared to be considered as Gazetted Officer in Group 'B' Now the fact remains that the pay was revised by notification dated 15-10-1994 before the post was declared as a gazetted post From the order of revision it does not appear that it was a simple revision of scale in a routine manner. On the other hand, the same was special kind of revision since it has been mentioned in the notification dated 15-10-1994 that having regard to the responsibility and importance of the work of the Forest Ranger and the excessive area of work, the scale was upgraded to Rs. 1640-2900/-. It is not a simple revision of scale but. in fact an upgradation. This upgradation is followed by declaration of the post as a Gazetted one clearly indicates that it was no more a scale of the past of Group 'C' posts since the scale is being upgraded followed by the post being declared as Gazetted it is really an upgradation which is followed by an administrative order to be declared that the said post is a Group 'B' post. The contention of Mr. Budhwar that unless a notification is issued declaring the post to be a Group 'C' post the same remains to be a group 'C' post. By virtue of notification dated 25-11-1989 the post does not become group B post simply because of the upgradation of the scale and declaration of the post to be a Gazetted one. After such upgradation the normal consequences th3t the same is declared as a Gazetted post by virtue of notification dated 21-8-1995 (Annexure CA-1) which is followed by the Government. Order dated 5 8-1996 (Annexure CA-2) by which it was recognised as Group 'B' post. It was a simple recognition of the upgradation which has already been effected by the upgradation of the scale and declaration of the post as a Gazetted post by a notification. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Budhwar is difficult to accept. On the other hand, if it is admitted that the cases related to Group B are to be decided then it should be placed before the Division Bench But then on the basis of the materials placed before this court, it is not possible to conclusively decide the said question. Therefore, it is left open to be decided at appropriate stage in appropriate case.
5. Be that as it may. Mr. Budhwar insisted that this matter may heard by this Court. However, it appears that the petitioner himself had prayed for his transfer from Myorpur Range by a letter which is contained as Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit whereby he had contended that he had been posted at Mayorpur which is very sensitive for the last two years and he controlled the forest crime in Mayorpur by his tireless effort. Therefore, he had requested for transfer to Anpara, Beena, Kakri, Duddichaon, Kharia Project or he may be retained at Mayorpur. The same is also Annexure 3 to the writ petition. But by an order dated 11-7-1897 the petitioner was transferred to Varanasi in public interest based on certain serious complaints against the petitioner, on enquiry whereof it was found that the life of the petitioner was in danger at Mayorpur Range at Renukoot Circle. The said order is contained in Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit Subsequently on his own request the petitioner was brought back from Varanasi Circle to Ranukoot Division after cancelling the order of transfer to Varanasi on the condition that he should be personally responsible for his security as stated in his application dated 18-7-1997. The said order of cancellation is contained in Annexure CA-5 to the counter affidavit which is dated 19-7-1997. Even in his letter dated 28-7-1997, the petitioner had contended that since Shri Dharmendra Nath Singh (Respondent No. 5) having posted at Kharia Project, therefore, he should be allowed to remain at Myorpur Range. The said letter dated 28-7-1997 of the petitioner is contained in Annexure 10 to the counter affidavit. Therefore by an order dated 31-7-1997 (Annexure CA-10-A to the counter affidavit) the petitioner was permitted to continue in Myorpur. No whisper about the letter dated 28-7-1997 has been made by the petitioner in any manner in the pleading of the writ petition The petitioner on an earlier occasion had challenged the order of transfer which was stayed by this court in a earlier writ petition which is still pending. On the basis of the letter dated 31-7-1997 (Annexure CA-10-A to the counter affidavit) the petitioner was issued an order dated 7-8-1997 directing him to his attendance to Myorpur Range and his attendance at Kharia Project was cancelled. Subsequently an order to the said effect was also issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest Eastern Range on 8-8-1997. The said orders dated 7-8-1997 and 8-8-1997 are Annexures CA-11 and 12 to the counter affidavit. Admittedly, the orders dated 7-8-1997 and 8-8-1997 are the orders passed subsequent to the presentation of the writ petition but however the said two orders were passed before the order dated 11 8-1997.
6. In paragraph 12 and 13 to the counter affidavit filed against the application for recalling the order dated 11-8-1997 the petitioner has stated that he was communicated the order dated 7-8-1997 on 8-8-1997 (Annexure CA-11 to the counter affidavit). But he has not explained as to why the information could not be divulged before this court when the order dated 11-8-1997 was passed. However, Mr. Budhwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no communication between his client and himself between 4-8 1997 and 11-8-1997, therefore, it was not possible for him to divulge the said fact.
7. Be that as it may. In view of the changed circumstances by reason of said orders dated 7-8-1997 and 8-8-1997 (Annexure CA-11 and 12 to the counter affidavit respectively) the petitioner having placed at Myorpur, he cannot say that he is being affected by reason of transfer of respondent No. 5 to Kharia Project. The petitioner himself having prayed for his retention at Mvorpur by his earlier letter contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition as well as by letter dated 28-7-1997 (Annexure CA-10 to the counter affidavit , he cannot be said to be aggrieved by reason of posting of respondent Mo. 5 at Kharia Project when he himself was agreeable to remain at Myorpur.
8. It is really very serious matter that certain facts particularly making of an application dated 28-7-1997 was totally omitted in the pleadings. This really amounts to suppression of fact This fact is very much necessary for purpose of deciding the case. The petitioner ought not to have suppressed the said fact and should have divulged to his counsel who could have very well advised him that this was a material fact which requires to be disclosed in the writ petition itself By reason of such suppression of material fact by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has been put to embarassment in the court unnecessarily.
9. Mr. Jain had relied on the decision in the case of Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1795 wherein it was held that the petitioner therein had filed a false affidavit which has since been depricated. In the said case it was held that:-
"Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavit in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any Court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermining or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence commits criminal contempt of the Court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the foundation of justice is allowed to be poisoned by any one resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a Court of Law The stream of justice has to be kept clean and pure and any one soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message percolates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration or the administration of justice."
10. Mr. Jain also relied on the judgment in the case of Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 wherein it has been held that :-
"2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interfere with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
3. These prefatory remarks will project the importance of the point under consideration in this suo motu contempt action taken against respondent Anil Kumar for his having filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of a matrimonial proceeding from Delhi to Nuncio. It shall be first required to be seen whether Anil did file a fabricated document and then we shall address ourselves as to whether filing of a forged document with intention to defraud amounts to contempt of court, as this expression has defined in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act)."
11. The principle is well settled. If it appears that the petitioner had misled this court by deliberate suppression of fact, in that event, he has to suffer the consequences. Suppression of fact having relevance or bearing on the question involved has the effect of diverting the course of justice. The person responsible can not be said to have come with clean hands, a principle greatly weighs in the right to claim equitable relief. By reason of such suppression if any order is obtained, the same can not be allowed to continue.
12. In the present facts and circumstances of the case in view of the decision as disclosed above and particularly in view of the changed circumstances as is appearing from the orders dated 7 8-1997 and 8-8-1997 being Annexure CA-11 and 12 to the counter affidavit as well as in view of the suppression of fact as above, I do not find any reason to maintain the order dated 11 8-1997. Since I have doubt that the post held by the petitioner is Class II post, this matter may be placed before the Division Bench for appropriate orders.
13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. C. Budhwar submits that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed.
14. The writ petition is therefore dismissed as not pressed.
15. Since the matter is dismissed as not pressed, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge any order, which is not subject-matter in the present petition and not referred to above, in any other writ petition.