Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book. 2. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-9) shows that the petitioner was convicted of offences under Sections 323/325/34 I.P.C. Although she had been selected on the post of Lady Constable, she was denied the appointment on the ground of adverse character verification report. On her selection, she was required to submit a certificate giving all the details containing inter-alia the details as to whether any criminal case was pending against her. She was also required to state as to whether she had been convicted or fined by a court of criminal jurisdiction. She furnished false information under her signatures and concealed the fact that she stood convicted of criminal offences at the time when she filled in the form. Police record was verified from the Police Station and it was only then discovered that she had been convicted by the trial court at the time when she filled in the form on 12.9.2002. The date of her conviction was 24.4.2002. So it becomes apparent that the petitioner deliberately furnished false information at the time of filling the form. Merely because the petitioner had ultimately been acquitted on account of the compounding of offences, would not be a justification to condone the dishonest behaviour exhibited by the petitioner. Further more, it is a settled proposition of law that any claim based on falsehood is liable to be rejected by the Courts at the thresh-hold. This view of ours rests on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs and Ors., (1995-1)109 P.L.R. 293 (S.C.) wherein it has been observed as under:- "7... The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous, persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation." 3. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous, persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation." 3. A perusal of the impugned order further shows that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected also on the ground that she is of violent nature and that she can attack and injure a person on slightest provocations. In the advertisement for selection, it was specifically mentioned in Note I that if any information submitted by the candidate is found to be wrong or he/she conceals any information about him/her, his/her candidature shall be rejected. The appointment in the Police department demands a high degree of discipline, in fact in the impugned order, it is mentioned that discipline is of paramount important. It is also mentioned that only those candidates can be appointed who have clean antecedents. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered opinion that no injustice has been done to the petitioner. 4. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.