JUDGMENT S.N. Aggarwal, J. 1. The petitioner Shri Nihal Singh has filed this writ petition seeking Mandamus to the respondent to disclose the result of the application submitted by him for his appointment to the post of Primary Teacher in the General Category. The petitioner has also prayed for a Mandamus directing the respondent Corporation to appoint him as a Primary Teacher with the schools run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent in response to notice of this writ petition. Ms. Saroj Bidawat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent says that the petitioner was not considered for his appointment to the post of Primary Teacher because he was not eligible for his appointment to the said post in terms of the recruitment rules mentioned in the advertisement issued for inviting the applications from eligible candidates. 3. The respondent had invited applications to fill up the vacant posts of Primary Teachers in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi sometime in July, 1996. The applications were invited from the persons between 18-30 years of age. The age was relaxable by three years in case of OBC candidates. The petitioner who applied for his consideration for appointment to one of the posts of Primary Teacher in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi belongs to OBC category. He was more than 36 years old on the date he made application for his appointment as Primary Teacher in the school of the respondent his date of birth mentioned in the application being 02nd July, 1960. He was, thereforee, found over age and was thereforee not considered for his appointment to the post of Primary Teacher. 4. According to the petitioner the age for eligibility was further relaxable by number of years a candidate had the teaching experience subject to maximum of 45 years. Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that on the date the petitioner had applied for the post of Primary Teacher in the school of respondent on 22nd July, 1996, he was already working as PGT (Biology) in Seth Bhagwan Dass Sr. Sec. Public School w.e.f. 01st July, 1996 and according to the learned Counsel, the petitioner prior to that also had worked in other schools also. Mr. Sec. Public School w.e.f. 01st July, 1996 and according to the learned Counsel, the petitioner prior to that also had worked in other schools also. Mr. Gupta has contended that the petitioner had filed the experience certificates along with his application which he made to the respondent for his appointment to the respondent. The contention of Mr. Gupta is that in case the experience of the petitioner had been taken into account by the respondent then the petitioner would have been found within the age limit for his consideration for the post of Primary Teacher in the school of the respondent. 5. Ms. Saroj Bidawat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent says that the petitioner did not annex any document or the experience certificate along with his application which he made to the respondent for his appointment on 22nd July, 1996. The contention of Ms. Saroj Bidawat is that all those documents on which reliance is placed by the petitioner were obtained by the respondent after filing of the present writ petition pursuant to some directions given by this Court to verify whether the petitioner had past experience or not. 6. In order to examine the respective contentions of the counsel for the parties, the court has seen the original record which has been produced before me. The original record contains the application dated 22nd July, 1996 which the petitioner has made to the respondent for his appointment to the post of Primary Teacher. Column-8(b) of the said application deals with the present post held, if any (with office address). The said column-8(b) has been answered by the petitioner by putting a mark "X". In case on the date the petitioner made his application for his appointment to the post of Primary Teacher, he was already working as a teacher elsewhere then he would have given the details of his previous employment and was not expected to have put "X" mark against the column-8(b). Since the petitioner had put the "X" mark against Column-8(b) of his application, the respondent cannot be expected to assume that he had some past experience for giving him the benefit of relaxation of age on the basis of his alleged past experience. Any document relating to past service procured by the respondent after the filing of the present writ petition is of no consequence. Any document relating to past service procured by the respondent after the filing of the present writ petition is of no consequence. It may be noted that at the bottom of the application which the petitioner had made to the respondent on 22nd July, 1996, it is mentioned that in case any information given by the petitioner therein was found to be wrong, the appointment of the petitioner was liable to be cancelled without any further reference. In case the petitioner is to be believed that he was working as a teacher on the date he had applied for his appointment in the school of the respondent then the only inference that can be drawn on the basis of answer given by the petitioner to column-8(b) is that he had given deliberate false information with regard to his past employment and for that reason also he is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 7. Furthermore, the petitioner in the present writ petition has only prayed for directions to the respondent to declare the result of his application which he made to the respondent for his appointment. The respondent in response to notice of the writ petition has filed the counter affidavit in which it has disclosed that the petitioner could not be considered for his appointment to the post of Primary Teacher as he was over age at the time of his consideration and in view of the same the prayer made in regard to the directions to the respondent to declare the result of the application stands complied with and no further directions need to be passed with regard to the said prayer. Since the petitioner was over age on the date he applied for his appointment to the post of Primary Teacher in the school of the respondent Mandamus for his appointment cannot be issued by this Court. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed