JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 19.05.2022, passed by respondent No. 2, whereby his services on the post of Registrar of G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology have been terminated. The petitioner also seeks a direction for quashing the decision of the Board of Governors (BOG) dated 14.05.2022, in relation to Agenda Item No. 31.3 and Agenda point No. 31.4. Lastly, the petitioner seeks quashing of REPORT–I and REPORT–II dated 13.01.2022, filed as Annexures 33 and 34 to the writ petition. 2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the termination of the petitioner’s services from the post of Registrar of the G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology is mala fide as Dr. Yashveer Singh, Officiating Director of the said Institute, is acting mala fide against him; that the impugned termination order has been issued in complete breach of the principles of natural justice and; that the respondents had earlier instituted an enquiry by issuing a charge-sheet, inter alia, on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Training and Placement Officer, as also his appointment as a Registrar of the said Institute were illegal and while that enquiry was still pending, and had not attained finality, by bypassing the enquiry, the respondents have terminated the petitioner’s services as the Registrar of the Institute without putting the petitioner to notice, and without granting him an opportunity to meet the allegations against him. 3. The impugned order dated 19.05.2022 reads as follows : “Ref. No. 72/44/NT(R)PF/M.O./2006/2022 Date: 19.05.2022 To Sri Sandeep Kumar S/o Sri Subhash Chandra 99/1 Arya Nagar Near Great Value Hotel Rajpur Road Dehradun, Uttarakhand Subject: Termination of your services from the post of Registrar, G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering & Technology, Pauri – Reg. Dear Sir, The Board of Governors (the appointing authority of Registrar) has taken a cognizance of your appointment to the post of Registrar in the institute and observed the following points:- 1. The post was advertised vide ref. No. 02/admn/2017 dated 03.02.2017. However, this advertisement was not approved by the Board of Governors (BOG). 2. The eligibility qualifications mentioned in the advertisement was 07 years of experience at the level of Deputy Registrar (Pay-band (PB)-3 in the Grade Pay (GP)-Rs. 5400) or equivalent. 3. The post was advertised vide ref. No. 02/admn/2017 dated 03.02.2017. However, this advertisement was not approved by the Board of Governors (BOG). 2. The eligibility qualifications mentioned in the advertisement was 07 years of experience at the level of Deputy Registrar (Pay-band (PB)-3 in the Grade Pay (GP)-Rs. 5400) or equivalent. 3. You were having following experience at the time of your application for the post of Registrar : CSIR, New Delhi PB-2 + GP Rs.4200 from 11.04.1997 to 13.01.2006 GBPIET, Pauri (TPO) PB-3 + GP Rs.5400 from 13.01.2006 to 01.12.2019 AICTE, New Delhi PB-3 + GP Rs.6600 from 18.05.2010 to 23.05.2011 Delhi University PB-3 + GP Rs.7600 from 12.07.2013 to 04.11.2014 4. You were not eligible for the post of Registrar as; (a) Service before 13.01.2006 is not countable towards eligibility for being in GP-Rs 4200 as against requirement of GP Rs. 5400. (b) Service in the post of Training and Placement Officer (TPO) cannot be counted as administrative experience as; it is an academic post as per the AICTE norms. (c) Service in AICTE, New Delhi from 18.05.2010 to 23.05.2011 and in Delhi University, Delhi from 12.07.2013 to 04.11.2014 is countable towards experience. Therefore, a period of 02 years and 04 months is the total qualifying service experience to the post of Registrar. 5. The selection to the post of Registrar was not approved by the BOG in its 26th meeting held on 16.06.2018 and an inquiry into the selection was instituted. 6. The inquiry committee was constituted by the Director of the institute, who was not authorised to do so without approval of the BOG. 7. You were appointed to the post of Registrar vide letter no. 1753/appointment/admin./2019 dated 02.12.2019 with the approval of the Chairman of BOG. 8. Your appointment was neither approved nor ratified by the BOG, till date. In view of the above points, the BOG unanimously decided to terminate your appointment to the post of Registrar; as it was not approved by the BOG (the appointing authority) and you were not fulfilling the eligibility of 07 years of administrative experience in Deputy Director or equivalent (as you possess only 02 years & 04 months valid experience in the post with GP Rs.5400 or above). Therefore, the appointment letter no. 1753 / appointment / admin./ 2019 dated 02.12.2019 becomes null and void. Therefore, the appointment letter no. 1753 / appointment / admin./ 2019 dated 02.12.2019 becomes null and void. Further, the BOG decided that you will continue as Officiating Training and Placement Officer (TPO) in this institute as you were holding this temporary position on 01.12.2019 before your appointment to the post of Registrar in the institute. However, your continuation to the post of Officiating Training and Placement Officer is subject to the final decision of the BOG on the inquiry committee report constituted in this matter. Therefore, you are required to resume your duties as Officiating Training and Placement Officer in this institute from 20.05.2022. Director/ Member-Secretary of BOG” 4. When we heard leaned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, it appeared to us, prima facie, that the petitioner had been wronged, inasmuch as, the respondent Institute had issued the termination letter dated 19.05.2022 without putting him to notice thereof. Counsel for the respondent Institute is present, on advance notice, and we called upon him to justify the actions taken by the Institute at this, prima facie, stage since the petitioner is also praying for an interim stay of his termination. What the learned counsel for the respondent has placed before us leads us to conclude that the petitioner is not only not deserving any interim relief, but the present petition itself is liable to be dismissed on account of a deliberate and calculated suppression of material facts and documents from the Court. Even otherwise, we do not find any equity in favour of the petitioner to compel us to ignore or overlook his aforesaid omission, and to proceed to entertain the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Institute points out that the petitioner has deliberately not placed on record the minutes of the 26th meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG) held on 16.06.2018, even though, the same finds specific mention in para 5 of the termination order. Learned counsel points out that the petitioner had earlier preferred Writ Petition (S/B) No. 341 of 2022, titled Sandeep Kumar Vs. G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology. That petition had earlier been preferred for the same relief, namely, to assail the petitioner’s termination vide termination order dated 19.05.2022. In that petition, the respondent Institute had filed a detailed counter-affidavit running into 364 pages. G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology. That petition had earlier been preferred for the same relief, namely, to assail the petitioner’s termination vide termination order dated 19.05.2022. In that petition, the respondent Institute had filed a detailed counter-affidavit running into 364 pages. Along with the counter-affidavit, the respondent Institute had placed before the Court the minutes of the 26th meeting of the BOG dated 16.06.2018. The petitioner withdrew the said writ petition on 27.06.2022 with liberty to file a fresh petition. The present petition has been filed in continuation or in pursuance of the said order. 6. Learned counsel points out that the petitioner was, therefore, possessed of the minutes of the 26th meeting of the BOG dated 16.08.2018. The petitioner has filed, along with the present petition, a copy of the counter-affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition by the respondent, i.e., Writ Petition No. 341 of 2022. However, the petitioner has calculated and deliberately withheld the said minutes of the BOG dated 16.06.2018. He has tendered in Court a copy of the said minutes of the meeting of the BOG dated 16.06.2018. Vide these minutes, the BOG, inter alia, recorded the resolution that the appointment exercise for the post of Registrar may be kept under suspension. The case of the respondents is that contrary to the said decision of the BOG, the appointment of the petitioner was made to the post of Registrar of the respondent Institute by the then Director of the Institute Mr. M.P.S. Chauhan. Even though the petitioner does not meet the eligibility conditions for appointment as the Registrar of the respondent Institute, which conditions had been approved by the Government on 16.01.2011, pertinently, the advertisement for appointment of the Registrar against which the petitioner applied laid down lower qualifications without the approval of the Government of the lower qualifications. 7. In our view, it was absolutely essential for the petitioner to place before this Court all the documents referred to in the impugned termination letter dated 19.05.2022, and the omission on the part of the petitioner to place the minutes of the 26th meeting of the BOG dated 16.06.2018, is clearly deliberate. 8. While exercising our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we act while keeping in view the principles of equity in mind. 8. While exercising our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we act while keeping in view the principles of equity in mind. A party who approaches the Court invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court is bound to come to the Court with clean hands while making a full and complete disclosure of all the relevant material facts and documents. The jurisdiction we exercise is discretionary. The discretion is exercised keeping in view not only the facts of the case, but also the conduct of the parties concerned. Since the petitioner has made a deliberate omission, inasmuch as, the petitioner did not place before this Court the minutes of the 26th meeting of the BOG dated 16.06.2018 which, if produced, would have shown that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Registrar was made contrary to the said minutes, we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Stay Applications (IA No. 01 of 2022 and 02 of 2022) also stand disposed of.