CWP No.18775/2007. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18775/2007. Date of Decision: 17.1.2008. Hari Ram and others ............. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others. ..............Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr.Kirti Kumar,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee,Sr.D.A.G.Haryana. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL) Petitioners, by filing this writ petition, have laid challenge to the advertisement dated 21.7.2007 (Annexure P-4) vide which State of Haryana has invited applications for the post of Mali, in the Department of Forest, Haryana. In that advertisement it was specifically mentioned that to be eligible, a candidate is supposed to have three years' experience as Mali, in the Department of Forest, to his credit. It is contention of the petitioners that they are continuously working in the department referred to above and while issuing the advertisement, relaxation in age has not been granted to them as opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 20-06(4) SCC 1, and also as per the policy framed by the State of Haryana subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court, referred to above, providing relaxation in age to the in-service candidates who were working on adhoc basis etc. In response to the notice, reply has been filed, wherein it has CWP No.18775/2007. 2 been stated that except petitioner no.2 other petitioners are not working with the respondents. Prayer of the petitioner no.1 for regularisation was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 8.10.2007. Petitioner nos. 3 to 7 are not working with the department for the last more than five years. No replication has been filed to the written statement. If facts mentioned above are correct, we feel that the petitioners are guilty of making concealment at the time, when the writ petition was filed, wherein they have stated that they are in continuous service of State of Haryana. An attempt has been made to over reach the Court, which cannot be tolerated. In view of facts mentioned above, we dismiss this writ petition filed on behalf of petitioners 1 and 3 to 7. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, we direct the Government to give him age relaxation if there exists any policy in that regard. Disposed of. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 17.1.2008 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge