CWP No. 20144 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20144 of 2008 Date of Decision : 3.12.2009 Jaskaran Singh & another .......... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Bhatia, Addl. A.G, Haryana for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Amit Sethi, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking directions in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from terminating the services of the petitioners and allowing them to continue in service as Drivers in Fire Brigade, Kot Kapura, as recommended by respondent No.3 vide letter dated 30.5.2007 attached as Annexure P-12 till the persons regularly selected are appointed against those posts. Reliance in support of this relief is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pardeep Kumar Sharma & others Vs. State of Haryana & others 2003(2) SCT 892. Notice of the writ petition was given. The learned counsel for the respondents filed written statement, CWP No. 20144 of 2008 2 wherein preliminary objection has been taken that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands, as they have concealed the material fact regarding filing of civil suit for regularization of their services, which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn.), Faridkot. In the said suit petitioners had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking restraint against the respondents from terminating their services. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, prays that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the preliminary objection. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that there was no necessity to disclose about the filing of the civil suit, as the relief claimed is different in the civil suit than the one claimed in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had filed a civil suit prior to approaching this Court. In the civil suit a specific prayer was made restraining the respondents from terminating their services, therefore, it was necessary for the petitioners to have disclosed the pendency of the civil suit. The petitioners deliberately concealed that from this Court. The petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands by concealing material facts. The equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to a party who does not approach the Court with clean hands. Dismissed. 3.12.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE