JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has arisen from the order dated 2.1.2008 passed by respondent No. 3, i.e., Executive Engineer, Laghu Dal Nahar, Khand Allahabad in his capacity as President of Selection Committee, rejecting candidature of petitioner for appointment to the Post of Runner on the ground that he is not within the prescribed age, i.e., he is underage and has sought to take advantage by making manipulation in certificate of Junior High School. 3. The case set up by petitioner in writ petition, in brief, is as under. 4. The petitioner claimed that his date of birth is 10.3.1988 and he is a Schedule Caste (Pasi). He passed Junior High School from Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Baharpur, District Allahabad in the year 2004 as a regular student. In Junior High School marks-sheet his date of birth was shown as 10.3.1988. He also claimed to have passed High School Examination, conducted by Board of High School and Intermediate, U.P., and therein also his date of birth mentioned as 10.3.1988. 5. The brief factual matrix is that the respondent No. 3 published an advertisement in daily newspaper “Amar Ujala” dated 21.8.2007, published from Allahabad, for recruitment to various Class-IV posts which included the post of Runner and pay-scale was Rs. 2550-3200. The minimum qualification therefor was Class-V passed. The age restriction was 18 to 35 years on 1.7.2007. The last date for submission of application form was 10.9.2007. 6. Petitioner applied in above recruitment. Interview took place on 5.10.2007 on which date petitioner participated in interview. The result was declared on the same date in which petitioner was declared successful for the post of Runner. Thereafter petitioner received a letter dated 17.10.2007 issued by respondent No. 2 requiring him to submit original academic certificates which petitioner submitted on 18.10.2007. Petitioner was not allowed to join and he has thereafter been communicated with impugned order canceling his selection. It is said that the impugned order is patently illegal and in violation of principle of natural justice and even otherwise bad in law. 7. Petitioner was not allowed to join and he has thereafter been communicated with impugned order canceling his selection. It is said that the impugned order is patently illegal and in violation of principle of natural justice and even otherwise bad in law. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, sworn by Anil Kumar Gupta, Assistant Engineer, Laghu Dal Nahar Khand, Allahabad, stating that petitioner manipulated in the Junior High School certificate submitted alongwith application form and when his date of birth was sought to be verified from District Basic Education Officer, it has been informed that the date of birth of petitioner is 1.7.1990 and not 10.3.1988. Therefore, he had not completed 18 years on 1.7.2007 and being underage, he was not eligible for selection but on account of his manipulation he got himself selected, which has rightly been cancelled. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of argument, sought to raise a serious dispute regarding alleged allegation of manipulation in Junior High School certificate submitted by petitioner and for this reason the Court vide order dated 14.5.2014 directed respondents to produce original record including application form of petitioner and appended documents which has been produced and perused by this Court. 9. In the original application form submitted by petitioner, in Item No. 10, educational qualification, he has claimed the same only upto Junior High School giving following details: 10- ‘kSf{kd ;ksX;rk@rduhdh ;ksX;rk dzekad mRrhZ.k dh x;h ijh{kk dk uke cksMZ@ fo|ky; dk uke o”kZ izkIrkad izfr’kr 1- tw- gkbZLdwy iw-ek- fo|ky; ckgjiqj] byk- 2004 341 52-46 izfr’kr Sl. No. Name of examination passed Name of Board/ School Year Marks obtained Percentage 1. Junior High-School Purva Madhyamik School, Baharpur, Allahabad 2004 341 52.46% 10. The enclosures thereto are mentioned at bottom of application which reads as under: (i) Marks-sheet certificate (ii) Caste certificate (iii) Residence certificate (iv) Schedule caste certificate 11. Photostat copy of Junior High School Examination-2004 is the first document appended with application form. It clearly shows overwriting on the figure ‘7’, ‘9’ and ‘0’, inasmuch as figure ‘7’ representing month has been overwritten to make it ‘3’, and in the year part figure ‘9’ and ‘0’ have been overwritten making ‘88’. Further ‘0’ has been added after it. Overwriting on the photostat copy of document is very apparent and clear. It clearly shows overwriting on the figure ‘7’, ‘9’ and ‘0’, inasmuch as figure ‘7’ representing month has been overwritten to make it ‘3’, and in the year part figure ‘9’ and ‘0’ have been overwritten making ‘88’. Further ‘0’ has been added after it. Overwriting on the photostat copy of document is very apparent and clear. Even the original certificate is also available on record and that shows a similar overwriting therein. 12. The letter of District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad bearing No. 11261-62/2007-08 dated 29.10.2007 is also part of original record which clearly states that as per original documents of marks available in the office, date of birth of petitioner is 1.7.1990. It reads as under: ^^mDr lanHkZ esa vki }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s vadi= dh tkap djk;h x;hA tkap vkè;kuqlkj layXu vadi= esa vafdr vkseizdk'k iq= jke ukjk;.k dh 'kq) tUe frfFk fo|ky; ds vfHkys[kkuqlkj 01-07-1990 ¼,d tqykbZ lu mUuhl lkS uCcs½ gSA d`i;k lR;kiu vk[;k ls voxr gksus dk d"V djsaA** “The mark-sheet made available by you in the aforesaid context was subjected to verification. As per verification report, correct date of birth of Om Prakash S/o Ram Narayan, mentioned in the enclosed mark-sheet, is 1.7.1990 (First July Nineteen Ninety) as per the school records. Kindly be informed with the verification report.” (English translation by the Court) 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner was repeatedly asked to clarify aforesaid overwriting but he could not explain the same. Instead he said that in High School certificate also his date of birth mentioned is 10.3.1988 and that should be taken final. When confronted with his original application form in which his High School education was not claimed, and such certificate is/was not part of selection record, he could not give any satisfactory reply. Thus it is a clear case where petitioner, though was not eligible to appear in selection, being underage, but tried to take advantage by making manipulation and forgery in his original document. Therefore, not only it disentitles him from getting any relief from this Court but, in my view, this writ petition deserve to be dismissed with costs, since this Court under Article 226 would not be justified to grant indulgence to a person who has come with unclean hands and with concealment of material facts. 14. Therefore, not only it disentitles him from getting any relief from this Court but, in my view, this writ petition deserve to be dismissed with costs, since this Court under Article 226 would not be justified to grant indulgence to a person who has come with unclean hands and with concealment of material facts. 14. In Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF and others, (2006) 2 SCC 541 , the Apex Court observed “A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the Court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. ...............” 15. In Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others, 2003 (Suppl.) 3 SCR 352, it was reiterated after referring to various earlier decisions of the Apex Court that fraud misrepresentation and concealment of material fact vitiates all solemn acts. In State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. T. Suryachandra Rao, AIR 2005 SC 3110 , the Apex Court after referring to various earlier decisions held that suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the Court. The same view has been reiterated in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 3330 . In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others, JT 2004(1) SC 88, the Apex Court observed that a person, who seeks equity, must act in a fair and equitable manner. In Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, AIR 1964 SC 345 , it was held that if there appears on the part of a person, who has approached the Court, any attempt to overreach or mislead the Court by false or untrue statements or by withholding true information which would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the discretion, the Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the discretion has been exercised in revoking the leave to appeal granted even at the time of hearing of the appeal. The same view was reiterated and followed in Vijay Syal and another v. State of Punjab and others, (2003) 9 SCC 401 . 16. The same view was reiterated and followed in Vijay Syal and another v. State of Punjab and others, (2003) 9 SCC 401 . 16. A litigant who has approached this Court in extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction with unclean hands, his conduct makes him liable to pay an exemplary cost for abusing the process of the Court, besides, wasting precious time of the Court, which could have been utilized for other cases. 17. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs, which I quantify to Rs. 25,000/-. ——————