IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.14344 of 2007 Between: B. Balasudarshan, S?o. (L) B.Balaiah, Prl. Jr. Civil Judge,Proddatur, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Judge, District Court, Kadapa. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, direction, or order, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant from the post of Junior Assistant is highly illegal unjustiﬁed, with a direction to the respondent to promote the applicant to the post of senior assistant from the post of junior assistant from the date from which the petitioner is eligible with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.S.SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.M.BHASKARA LAKSHMI (SC FOR APHC) The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.14344 of 2007 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a former judicial ministerial employee in the unit of the District Judge, Kadapa. He ﬁled instant writ petition seeking writ of Mandamus, inter alia, directing the respondent to promote him to the post of Senior Assistant. The petitioner statedly joined judicial ministerial service in 1982 at Kurnool. He was presumably, on his request, transferred to Kadapa unit. According to him, in the gradation list of 2005 he was placed at Serial No.23. By virtue of such position, he was called for interview to ﬁll up the posts of Senior Assistants. However, he was not promoted. Hence the present writ petition. The learned District Judge ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit. The essential fact is that the petitioner submitted application dated 30.03.2007 to the respondent seeking permission for voluntary retirement. The same was accepted and the learned District Judge issued proceedings dated 09.05.2007 permitting the petitioner to retire with eﬀect from 30.06.2007. Curiously the petitioner who ﬁled the present writ petition on 04.07.2007 does not even disclose this important fact. He is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. It is well settled that a writ would not be issued if the aggrieved person does not approach the Court with clean hands. Suppressing the fact is fatal to the case of the petitioner. Even otherwise the case of the petitioner was not considered by the learned District Judge presumably due to the fact that he submitted application for voluntary retirement. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. ____________ V.V.S.RAO, J 06th August, 2008 __________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J GHN To 1. The District Judge, District Court, Kadapa. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}