JUDGMENT : W.P. (C) 8543/2015 The petitioner has filed the present seeking the following prayers: “(a) To set aside the resolution dated 21.3.2015 whereby the petitioner has been denied from being re-employed as a Vice-Principal for further duration in years with terms of Notification No. F-30-3(28)/ CO-ord.//2006-689-707 dated 29.1.2007, Notification No. F.30-3(28)/III/Co ord./07/Pttilo/180 dated 15.2.2008, Order No. F. 32(8)/2011/SB/Edn./136-155 dated 27.1.2012 and Notification No.F.30-3(28) Co-ord./Edn./Vol. II/2006-23872407 dated 24.9.2013. (b) Issue the writ of certiorari/mandamus commanding the respondent to re-employ the petitioner for further duration in years from 31.5.2015 with all consequential benefits. (c) To direct the respondent to pay the consequential benefits alongwith interest @ 14% to the petitioner." 2. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that he has retired from Service on May 31, 2015 from the post of Principal. The Director of Education, Government of NCT has written to the respondent No. 3 School on June 4, 2015 to submit the documents in respect of re-employment of the petitioner, which were submitted by the respondent No. 3 school. The Deputy Director of Education in his communication dated June 8, 2015 analysed the reasons assigned by the respon­dent school for not re-employing the petitioner and concluded that the respondent school management committee cannot deny re-employment to the petitioner for the reasons mentioned in the communication dated June 4, 2015. 3. On the last date of hearing i.e. September 7, 2015, this Court noting the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner passed the following order: “Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to page 76 of the paper-book, which is a letter written by the respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 in which, the respondent No. 2 has stated that the management committee of the school cannot deny re-employment to the petitioner to the post of Principal in view of the notification dated February 15,2008, which inter alia deals with re-employment of all retiring teachers and he would further state, it is the satisfaction of the DDE concerned of the concerned District, which would be relevant for the reemployment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that if the respondents fill up the post of Principal then the present petition would become infructuous. Let dasti notice be issued for service on the respondents returnable on 14th September, 2015.” 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that if the respondents fill up the post of Principal then the present petition would become infructuous. Let dasti notice be issued for service on the respondents returnable on 14th September, 2015.” 4. Today the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 school has placed before me a communication dated June 12, 2015 written by the School to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Director of Education, wherein the School had justified the decision of the Management Committee not to re-employ the petitioner in the best interest of the students and the school. He has also brought to my notice communication dated June 27, 2015, which is in continuation of letter dated June 12, 2015 submitting certain documents for the consideration of the Deputy Director of Education. He has also brought to my notice a letter dated August 26, 2015, copy of which was endorsed to the petitioner herein, wherein the Deputy Director of Education i.e. respondent No. 2 has conveyed the decision of the Regional Director of Education (Central), rejecting the request of re-employment of the petitioner as Principal up to the age of 62 years. He would state that a copy of this letter was received by the petitioner on August 31, 2015. 5. I note that there is no mention of this letter in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Even the petitioner, who is present in person, when asked whether he has received copy of the communication dated August 26, 2015 on August 31, 2015, he answers in affirmative. 6. It is clear that the petitioner has concealed this aspect in the petition, which was filed on September 1, 2015. The document is an important/material one, as, it was the case of the petitioner, as recorded in the order dated September 7, 2015 that the satisfaction of the DDE concerned which would be relevant when a decision has been taken by the concerned authority and conveyed to the petitioner, it ought to have been placed on record by the petitioner. Such a conduct, disentitles the petitioner even consideration of his grievance in the writ petitioner in view of the law laid down in the case reported as II (1993) BC 546 = AIR 1994 SC 853 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. v. fagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. Such a conduct, disentitles the petitioner even consideration of his grievance in the writ petitioner in view of the law laid down in the case reported as II (1993) BC 546 = AIR 1994 SC 853 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. v. fagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. This is a sufficient ground for this Court not to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart the Government of NCT having considered the case of the petitioner and rejected it, I consider it a further ground not to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petition is dismissed. CM No. 18395/2015 In view of the order passed in the writ petition, the present application is dismissed as infructuous. Petition dismissed.