( 1 ) IN this writ petition the three writ petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondents to allow them to join the post of Fire Operators on consideration of the fact that they were selected for undergoing the basic course for appointment to the post of Fire Operators and successfully completed the said course. ( 2 ) THE respondents sought for a few names from the Employment Exchange/schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes Welfare Association for appointment to the posts of Fire Operators. In pursuance of the aforesaid request of the respondents the Employment Exchange sponsored the names of several candidates including the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners were directed vide letter dated 19. 7. 1991 by the Personnel Manager of the International Airport Authority of India (in short IAAI) to report for physical standards verification, driving test and stamina test. In clause O. 3 of the said letter it was made clear to the petitioners that they were required to bring with them the original certificates/ testimonials/heavy motor vehicle license etc. in proof of their age, educational qualifications, experience etc. Clause 0. 5 of the said letter further stated that the petitioners were provisionally allowed for the selection subject to their producing valid heavy motor vehicle license on the date of selection. Clause 10 further stipulated that the management of IAAI reserved the right to reject the candidature of the petitioners if the information furnished by them was found to be false at any stage of the selection. In pursuance of the aforesaid call notice the petitioners appeared for the various tests as mentioned in the aforesaid letter and also for the interview, and by letter dated 22. 11. 1991 issued by the Deputy General Manager on behalf of the AHA the petitioners were informed that they had been selected for basic course for Operators in IAAI before they were actually appointed as Fire Operators on certain terms and conditions. In paragraph 2 of the said letter it was stipulated that their selection for basic course was based on the information furnished by them in their application/personal data form/ attestation form. It was made clear that in the event of any incorrect information or any suppression of information in respect of their qualification, experience, age, character and antecedents coming to notice it will be treated as serious misconduct entailing termination of service. It was made clear that in the event of any incorrect information or any suppression of information in respect of their qualification, experience, age, character and antecedents coming to notice it will be treated as serious misconduct entailing termination of service. The petitioners, thereafter, submitted their joining report for the basic course training and successfully completed the same and were released from the training on 22. 4. 1992. However, by letter dated 26. 11. 1992 the respondents called for certain documents from the petitioners before they were taken on regular rolls of IAAI. On 18. 8. 1993 the petitioners were sent for medical test. However, inspite of production of all the materials directed to be famished and successfully completing the medical tests the petitioners w ere not given the order to join the post of Fire Operators, although other similarly situate persons selected alongwith the petitioners and successfully completing the training course alongwith them were allowed to join the post of Fire Operators. ( 3 ) THE respondents have filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, that after the petitioners completed their basic training course in April, 1992 certain lapses of serious nature in appointment of the trainees including the petitioners came to the notice of the management and that the matter was considered by the Department of Vigilance and Personnel at IAAI Headquarters in great detail. It was decided with the approval of the Chairman IAAI that a Committee comprising of Senior Officers of IAAI be constituted by Headquarters which should re-check the Bio data of the candidates vis-a- vis their original certificates/ testimonials to ensure that they fulfil the minimum prescribed job specifications for the post which includes qualification acquired and validity of the original driving license etc. for the post. Accordingly, the Committee consisting of Senior Officers called 13 candidates on 18. 8. 1993 and re-checked the Bio data of the candidates including the two petitioners namely the petitioner No. l and petitioner No. 2 vis-a-vis their original certificates/testimonials to find out as to whether they fulfil the qualifications for the post of Fire Operators or not. The committee decided that the third petitioner namely - Shri Nawal Singh need not be called for verification of the testimonials as he had earlier failed in driving test. The committee decided that the third petitioner namely - Shri Nawal Singh need not be called for verification of the testimonials as he had earlier failed in driving test. The Committee, on examination of the aforesaid records found that the petitioners No. 1 and 2 including 4 others had acquired heavy motor vehicle driving license before the age of 20 years by fraudulent means which violates the statutory requirement as per Motor Vehicles Act. It was further found that the matriculation certificates furnished by petitioner No. 2 was doubtful as there were erasings and corrections in the original certificates. It was further stated that in view of the above discrepancy, the appointing authority after taking a conscious decision debarred 6 candidates including petitioners No. 1 and 2 from the appointment as Fire Operators, whereas the third petitioner was not called for re-checking of the documents for the reason that he had earlier failed in the driving test and therefore, w as not entitled to appointment. The reasons for not giving appointment to the two petitioners have thus been spelt out in the counter affidavit as the said two petitioners had obtained a heavy motor vehicle driving license by deliberately furnishing a false information by concealing the age/date of birth to the State Transport Authority and not as mentioned in their High School Certificate which is generally and normally considered and accepted as proof of age. ( 4 ) MR. Keshav Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that all the required information including original documents like age certificate and certificate of heavy motor vehicle license were furnished to the respondents for verification and that no wrong information was submitted by the petitioners to the respondents nor was there any mis-representation or fraud on their part to the respondents about any of their credentials. He further submitted that there was no manipulation and/ or fabrication by the petitioners either in obtaining the heavy motor vehicles license or in furnishing any information and that there was no representation of any fact before the concerned authority and accordingly the decision of the respondents in not allowing the petitioners to join the post of Fire Operators amounts to clear discrimination in between the petitioners and the aforesaid persons who have been appointed inspite of the similar alleged disqualifications. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents drew my attention to the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act which prohibit a person under the age of 20 years from driving a transport vehicle in any public place. He further submitted that in order to obtain a driving license a person has to meticulously and truly disclose his age in the prescribed form and apparently both the petitioners No. 1 and 2 did not disclose truly and correctly their date of birth, as is disclosed from their matriculation certificates and that they obtained the said heavy motor vehicle driving license under mis-representation, although they had not completed 20 years of age on the date of issue of those licenses. The said fraudulent action on the part of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 dis-entitled them from being appointed as Fire Operators in terms of the letter dated 19. 7. 1991 followed by letter dated 22. 11 1991. According to him, the decision of the appointing authority hot to allow the petitioners 1. 2 and 3 to join the post of Fire Operators is a conscious decisions and is based on relevant materials and therefore the same is not liable to be interfered with by this court, as it has been arrived at after due application of mind and after proper enquiry giving the petitioners full opportunity of representing their case. ( 6 ) AFTER issuance ot rule in this case an order was passed on 30. 8 1995 by this court allowing the petitioners to show the original documents as demanded by the respondents in their letter dated 26. 11. 1994 which included registration card, original certificates of qualification and original driving licenses to Shri O. P. Miglani. Deputy General Manager of the respondents on 1. 9. 1995 at 11 A. M. It was further directed in the said order that Mr. Miglanj would give audience to the petitioners on that date positively. It is in pursuance of the said order, it is stated at the bar. that the petitioners No. 1 and 3 appeared before Mr. Miglani and produced for his consideration the documents REFERRED TO to in the said order. Miglanj would give audience to the petitioners on that date positively. It is in pursuance of the said order, it is stated at the bar. that the petitioners No. 1 and 3 appeared before Mr. Miglani and produced for his consideration the documents REFERRED TO to in the said order. However, the petitioner No. 2, as it appears, did not appear before the said authority nor did he produce any certificates including his original certificate of qualification and driving license inspite of aforesaid direction of this court. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties and also the records available before me. Since the petitioner No. 3 failed in the driving test which was required to be successfully cleared for being appointed to the post of Fire Operators, the decision of the respondents in not appointing him to the post of Fire Operator cannot be questioned and/or held to be bad on any count. So far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it was found by the Committee that so far his original certificates are concerned particularly his matriculation certificate there were erasings and corrections in the said matriculation certificate It thus appears that the said petitioner No. 2 has failed to furnish true and correct information about his age/date of birth to the concerned State Transport Authority. It is likely that such erasings and corrections were made in the original certificate in order to make it tally with that of the age requirement for obtaining a heavy motor vehicle driving license. In view of the aforesaid fact the decision of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner No. 2 as Fire Operators cannot also be faulted Therefore, I am left with the case of petitioner No. 1 alone for consideration as to whether a direction could be issued by this court for appointing him to the post of Fire Operators. ( 8 ) THE provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly show that a person could obtain a heavy motor vehicle driving license only after he attains the age of 20 years. ( 8 ) THE provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly show that a person could obtain a heavy motor vehicle driving license only after he attains the age of 20 years. Computing the age on the basis of the matriculation certificate submitted by petitioner No. 1 it was found by the Committee that the petitioner No. 1 obtained the aforesaid driving license before the age of 20 years, which apparently was by making a false declaration regarding his age in the prescribed Form A. In view of the aforesaid position the Committee felt that the petitioner No. 1 managed to obtain the heavy motor vehicle driving license fraudulently and through mis-representation and on that count he has dis-entitled himself from being appointed as a Fire Operator. In similar facts and circumstances, in the case of Distt. Collector and Chairman, Vwanagaram S. W. R. S. Society Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi; reported in (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 655, the Supreme Court held that since on scrutiny of original certificates the respondent was found to be short of qualifications, the action of the authority in not allowing the respondent to join the service was proper. On consideration of the relevant materials I cannot find any fault either with the decision making process or with the decision itself taken by the Competent Authority on consideration of the relevant records. The petitioner No. 2 was also similarly held to have furnished wrong information and mis-represented before the concerned authority in respect of his actual age for obtaining the heavy motor vehicle driving license. To that extent the cases of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 are also similar and therefore, the same reasoning would also apply to the petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 2 was further given an opportunity by this court to place his material before the concerned authority for necessary verification. The said opportunity granted by this court was also not availed of by the petitioner No. 2. ( 9 ) TAKING into consideration all the aforesaid factors I find that the decision of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners to the post of Fire Operators and in not allowing them to join in the post of Fire Operators cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable. Accordingly, this writ petition has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed, but without any costs.