Writ petition dismissed for suppression of material facts and failure to priorly demand relief from authorities.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to compel the respondents to consider his merits for the post of Master of Education and to issue an appointment order.

During the proceedings, the respondent (No. 2) pointed out that the petitioner had suppressed material facts: specifically, that the retiral benefits claimed in the petition had already been released and paid to him in July and November 2012, seven years prior to the filing of the petition.

Furthermore, the petitioner raised a claim for pensionary benefits for the first time in this writ petition without having previously made a representation to the relevant authorities.

Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has suppressed material facts regarding the receipt of previously claimed benefits.

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued for pensionary benefits where no prior demand was made to the concerned authority.

The court applied the equitable principle that a person seeking discretionary relief under Article 226 must come with "clean hands" and disclose all material facts.

It relied on *K. Jayaram & Ors. v. Bangalore Development Authority* (2022) 12 SCC 815, which establishes that withholding vital material to gain an advantage is a fraud on the court.

The court further cited *Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India* (2007) 8 SCC 449 and *K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited* (2008) 12 SCC 481, affirming that the court may dismiss an action at the threshold without adjudicating merits if the applicant misleads the court or suppresses relevant materials.

Additionally, the court applied the procedural rule that a writ of mandamus requires a prior demand for justice and a subsequent refusal by the authority.

The court found that the petitioner’s failure to disclose the receipt of retiral benefits paid in 2012 constituted a clear suppression of material facts.

Although the petitioner’s counsel argued the omission was due to inadvertence, the court held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary; as such, the conduct of the party is paramount.

Since the petitioner "played hide and seek" with the facts, the court refused to examine the eligibility for pensionary benefits on merits.

Regarding the new claim for pension, the court reasoned that the petitioner had jumped the gun by approaching the High Court directly without first filing a representation with the department, which is a prerequisite for a writ of mandamus.

The Rule was discharged with no order as to costs.

However, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before the respondent-authority regarding pensionary benefits, with the caveat that any future legal recourse must include full disclosure of all material facts.