ORDER : Petitioners are seeking shifting of cutoff date and thereby, suitable age relaxation to them to make them eligible for appearing in the examination for appointment under Advertisement No. 21 of 2016. 2. The petitioners assert that after 2011, this is the first time an examination of this kind is held under the Government of Jharkhand. In the representation dated 06.01.2017 signed by petitioner no. 3, he claims that advertisement for appointment of teachers for Government High Schools was first issued on 01.01.2008 and thereafter, on 01.01.2011. All the petitioners are claiming appointment as a Graduate Trained teacher. The above stand of the petitioners is factually incorrect. On 18.03.2017, I have delivered a judgment in batch of writ petitions; one being W.P.(S) No. 4631 of 2015, in which advertisement for appointment of Graduate Trained teachers was issued in the year, 2015 for hundreds of post. Not so long ago, on 02.02.2017, I had passed an order directing the State of Jharkhand to initiate a process, for final counselling, for appointment of about Four thousand Graduate Trained teachers, when I found that 1/3rd of the total vacancies had remained unfilled. Knowledge of an order/judgment one can deny but, an aspirant seeking appointment as a Graduate Trained teacher cannot claim that he had no knowledge of the advertisements issued for more than Ten thousand posts of Graduate Trained teacher in the State of Jharkhand. Writ petitions like the present one need to be dismissed at the threshold, if not for any other reason, atleast to send a message to the desperate litigants that they are under a legal obligations to disclose true and correct facts. The writ petitions founded on incomplete and incorrect facts, howsoever an important question of law it has raised, cannot be entertained if the suppression has a material bearing on the outcome of the petition. 3. It is admitted at Bar that the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1310 of 2017 with a similar prayer has been dismissed on 20.03.2017 and on 21.03.2017 another learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed W.P.(C) No. 1392 of 2017 seeking similar age relaxation. Still, I am inclined to examine merits of the matter for the reason that Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a plea that was not raised in W.P.(S) No. 1310 of 2017. Still, I am inclined to examine merits of the matter for the reason that Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a plea that was not raised in W.P.(S) No. 1310 of 2017. It is the contention of the petitioners that in terms of Rule16 of the Jharkhand Government Secondary School Teachers and non-Teaching Staffs Appointment and Service Condition Rule, 2015 the Government is empowered to exercise its power to grant age relaxation which power appears to have been exercised by the State Government which is reflected in the Advertisement No. 05 of 2015. Under para8 of the said advertisement maximum age limit for appointment of para teachers has been relaxed by 7 years. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that if powers under Rule-16 is not exercised by the State Government this time also, it would amount to discrimination between two sets of teachers. 4. This contention is misconceived. In the first place, appointment of para teachers is not regulated under Jharkhand Government Secondary School Teachers and non-Teaching Staffs Appointment and Service Condition Rule, 2015. Rule16 is a provision which is commonly known as Henry VIII Clause. This is only for removal of difficulties which may arise in the implementation of the Rules and the subjects incidental thereto. “Power to relax” has a different connotation in the legal parlance and generally statutes provide a separate clause for power to relax. Rule16 by no stretch of imagination can be construed as a provision empowering the authority to grant age relaxation. The matter, however, does not conclude here. From the certificates produced by the petitioners in the present proceeding, I find that the petitioner no. 1 is possessing MA and B.Ed. degree. He passed M.A. Examination in the year, 2006 and B.Ed. degree he obtained in the year, 2008. The petitioner no. 2 appeared in M.A. examination of the session 1998 which was held in the year, 2000, petitioner no. 3 in the year, 2012 and petitioner no. 4 in the year, 2003. Now, all these years the petitioners definitely were not waiting for invitation for application for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained teachers. Elsewhere, they had equal opportunity for appointment on a suitable post. In law, I am of the opinion that on a plea that examinations were not held for long years age relaxation cannot be claimed, as a matter of right. Elsewhere, they had equal opportunity for appointment on a suitable post. In law, I am of the opinion that on a plea that examinations were not held for long years age relaxation cannot be claimed, as a matter of right. 5. Reliance on Advertisement Nos. 12 of 2008 and 93 of 2011 is completely misconceived. These advertisements were issued in different set of circumstances and for different posts. Moreover, fixation of cutoff date is a pure administrative function, with which the Courts generally do not interfere. 6. The writ petition, bereft of merit, is dismissed.