Judgment :- S.S. SUBRAMANI, J. This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of first respondent in reference to Memorandum No. 3365/G1/93, dated 12-8-1994 and quash the same and pass such further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. In the affidavit in support of the petition, petitioner alleges that he is the Presiding Officer in the Court of the Additional District Munsif, Tiruppathur, North Arcot District. He was an advocate practising at Musiri Bar, Tiruchirapalli District. On 30-11-1990, he forwarded his application for the recruitment as District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the first respondent in the case. As per the notification, petitioner is qualified since he had six years standing in the Bar. He was selected by the Public Service Commission and appointment order was also issued by the Secretary to the Government, third respondent herein. Petitioner was posted as Judicial Magistrate at Vellore by the High Court. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission called for an explanation from the petitioner by letter dated 16-8-1993 alleging that petitioner has suppressed a querry under column 18(d) of the application dated 30-11-1990. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 31-12-1993 and thereafter petitioner received an order of suspension dated 25-1-1994 from second respondent herein and he was placed under suspension. During suspension, petitioner faced trial before the Additional District Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. Petitioner was acquitted and was reinstated in service. It is submitted that second respondent passed an order of suspension for the same subject matter and he faced trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy, wherein also he was acquitted as per Judgment dated 23-2-1994.After acquittal, petitioner made representation to second respondent to reinstate him in service and High Court also reinstated him in service and petitioner joined duty as Additional District Munsif, Tiruppathur. On 12-8-1994, first respondent issued a letter informing petitioner that his provisional selection has been cancelled since he has suppressed material facts and he was further debarred from appearing for any examination for a period of one year with effect from 12-8-1994. According to petitioner, first respondent has no jurisdiction to raise this issue after provisional selection. According to petitioner, first respondent has no locus-standi or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. According to petitioner, first respondent has no jurisdiction to raise this issue after provisional selection. According to petitioner, first respondent has no locus-standi or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. It is said that after provisional selection list for recruitment as District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate was sent to Government and the same has been forwarded to the High Court, petitioner is under the direct control of the Tamil Nadu Government as well as administrative control of the High Court, Madras. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is a statutory body with limited powers and once he having been appointed, role of Public Service Commission comes to an end. It is said that Public Service Commission is not having the power of cancelling any selection by merely relying on the instructions attached to the prospectus. According to petitioner, even instructions are vague and prospectus also cannot have the force of law. According to him, he has not misrepresented any facts. He therefore prayed to quash the impugned memorandum dated 12-8-1994 issued by first respondent. Detailed counter-affidavit was filed by first respondent in this case. It is stated therein that Public Service Commission issued notification on 5-11-1990 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, 1989-91 to be made by direct recruitment, Petitioner applied for the post through the Registrar of High Court. The names and other particulars of selected candidates including that of petitioner was communicated to the Government on 27-4-1991.In the application form there is a column which has to be filled in by the applicants. That column is 18(d), which refers to a querry. "whether there is any criminal proceedings or disciplinary action instituted against you. If yes, give details." Writ petitioner has answered the querry in column 18(d) by saying 'No'. In fact, this statement by petitioner is not true. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (CID), Madras was addressed on 19-5-1993 to verify whether the statement of petitioner is correct. He was also directed to verify whether there are any complaints pending against petitioner at the time when the application was made. Under instructions from the Inspector General of Police, Madras, (Crimes), the Superintendent of Police, Trichy sent a report on 25-6-1993 stating that petitioner was involved in Thottiam P.S. Crime No. 37/86 under Ss. He was also directed to verify whether there are any complaints pending against petitioner at the time when the application was made. Under instructions from the Inspector General of Police, Madras, (Crimes), the Superintendent of Police, Trichy sent a report on 25-6-1993 stating that petitioner was involved in Thottiam P.S. Crime No. 37/86 under Ss. 147, 148, 341, 323, 332, 427, 115 and 307 of Indian Penal Code which was reported on 26-2-1986. Writ petitioner herein is accused No. 1 in that case and the case is pending trial before II Additional Sessions Courts, Trichy in S.C. No. 9 of 1988. It was therefore found that on the date when application was submitted, a criminal case was pending against petitioner. The case was registered on 26-2-1986 and therefore his statement that "there is no criminal proceedings against him on the date of application' is suppression of material fact. According to Public Service Commission, petitioner has wilfully suppressed the material facts regarding the criminal case pending against him and being a candidate applying for an important post as District Munsif in Government service, he should have furnished required particulars correctly. Petitioner has falsely stated 'No' only with an ulterior motive and the intention to hide the fact may stand in the way of his selection. It is further stated that the intention of the Commission in providing a column as such in the application is that a candidate must satisfy the Commission that the character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for the appointment for the post.According to paragraph 29 of the Commission's instructions to candidates, which are supplied to the candidates along with the application, applicants are warned that they are liable to be debarred from appearing for any of the selections and examinations conducted by the Commission for suppression of material informations regarding previous employment in Government, local bodies or public corporations, etc., or arrest or conviction, debarment or disqualification by Union Public Service Commission, State Public Service Commission, participation in any agitation or any political movement and candidature in any of the elections to the Parliament, State Assembly, Local bodies, etc. since petitioner has suppressed the material information regarding criminal case pending against him, Commission has decided to issue show-cause notice as to why his application should not be rejected and his selection cancelled. A show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 16-8-1993. since petitioner has suppressed the material information regarding criminal case pending against him, Commission has decided to issue show-cause notice as to why his application should not be rejected and his selection cancelled. A show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 16-8-1993. Petitioner wanted to verify the records and he was also permitted to peruse his application. Thereafter, petitioner filed his explanation on 31-12-1993. After verification of his explanation it was found that petitioner had to be proceeded with and therefore impugned order was passed. According to first respondent, only because petitioner suppressed the truth, it had to proceed this way and when he want a post in Judiciary, little more honesty is expected of him. Merely because he has been selected and appointed on the basis of selection, Jurisdiction of public service commission is not taken away for cancelling the selection. It prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. At the request of learned counsel on both sides, entire records in S.C. 9 of 1988 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy was called for and we have perused the same.First respondent has issued instructions to the candidates and it is only in compliance with these instructions candidates are expected to fill up application forms. Even in the application form, candidates have to verify and declare that various statements made in the application are true to the best of their knowledge and belief and they have to further declare that nothing has been concealed. Paragraph 29 of the instructions reads thus," Applicants are warned that any alteration tampering with the documents of certificate including conduct and character certificate will be viewed seriously and that the applicants responsible for such alteration tampering will be liable to be debarred from appearing for any of the selection and examinations conducted by the Commission and consequently from entry into public service itself. Candidates furnishing false particulars in the application forms in the matter of their qualification or the nature of pass in various subjects or the experience gained by them in various capacities or their religion or community, etc. will be debarred from appearing for the examinations and selections held by this commission permanently or for such period of years as the Commission may decide. will be debarred from appearing for the examinations and selections held by this commission permanently or for such period of years as the Commission may decide. The same penalty will be imposed for suppression of material information regarding previous appearances or availing free changes or, employment in Government, Local Bodies or Public Corporations, etc. or arrest, convictions, debarment or disqualifications by the Union Public Service Commission/State Public Service Commission participation in any agitation or any political movement and candidature in any of the elections to the parliament/State Assembly, Local Bodies, etc. "I have already said that petitioner moved an application on 30-11-1990. One of the column he was asked to fill up was whether there is any criminal proceedings or disciplinary action instituted against him. He declared that no criminal proceeding is pending as against him by stating "No" in the column. On verification by police it was found that petitioner was the first accused in S.C. 9 of 1988 on the file of II Additional Sessions Court, Trichy and FIR was registered on 26-2-1986. It is true that he was acquitted of the charge. It is also true that he obtained an anticipatory bail from this Court and after he was charge sheeted he was also suspended from the service. Later, after his acquittal, he was also reinstated. The question that is to be considered in this Petition is whether writ petitioner is entitled to be declared that selection of petitioner as cancelled on the ground that he was suppressed material facts in his application form.To the memorandum of show cause notice issued to petitioner, he submitted explanation. It is only proper on our part to extract the entire explanation submitted by him, which reads thus," With reference to the Office Memorandum No. 3365/G1/93 dated 16-8-1993, I submit to inform that I never suppressed any information as alleged in your letter. I signed the application form on 30-11-90. Till that date, I was not aware that I was implicated in a police case. I never received any letter from the Police Department that I have been implicated as an accused person. But I wish to reiterate at this point as what has happened during 1986, when I contested in the Election for the Post of Panchayat Union Chairman of Thottiam Panchayat Union. I never received any letter from the Police Department that I have been implicated as an accused person. But I wish to reiterate at this point as what has happened during 1986, when I contested in the Election for the Post of Panchayat Union Chairman of Thottiam Panchayat Union. I was one of the candidates, who had contested in the said Election and during counting of votes, some tention developed between the Harijan Community and the caste Hindus. So, the Police resorted to lathi charge and opened fire on the public killing four persons of Harijan community and many others injured. During all these commotions, I was present only at the counting centre. I was afraid and suspected that I might also be implicated in the case along with the other party persons by the Caste Hindus with their influence with the police. I sought for an anticipatory bail and got it. The anticipatory bail was obtained not because I was and which I was not at all aware but because of the fear that I may also be implicated. This is exactly what has happened during the time of election in 1986. I respectfully submit that I am innocent and I filled up the application form bona fide believing in good faith that no case was pending at the time of filling up the application. I did tell the truth regarding columns 16, 17, 18(a) to (d) of the application form that I contested the election and I was not at all arrested and remanded. For item 18(d) of the application, because of the above reasons, I mentioned 'No' against column 18(d). I wrote that there was no case is pending against me quiet innocent of the complications. I am quiet aware of that honesty is essential quality for a Judicial Officer. Because of this, I was bold enough and truthful enough to give the actual details for columns 16, 17, 18(a) to (d). After having done that I would not have hesitated to tell that a criminal case is pending against me because no official written communication was given to me, I did not consider it necessary to fill up column 18(d).I regret for the inconvenience caused and I request that under the above circumstances, what I have done is not suppression of information. I submit that I have put in about three years of service, as District Munsif after selection and I do my job with sincerity, honesty, and integrity. I do realise my responsibility and the purpose of the job in which I am working. I assure that I will not commit and I have not committed any illegal act or offence. I was having a very good academic career in college where I studied and obtained good testimonials from the Institutions. In these circumstances, I pray my explanation be accepted and the Commission and No action need be taken and I may be pardoned and exonerated and I may be permitted to submit my final explanation within a month. "This explanation was not accepted by first respondent and impugned order was passed which reads thus," Thiru G. Ravanan, applied to the Commission for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service 1989-91. He was selected and appointed to the said post. In his application dated 30-11-1990 he has stated as 'No' against column 18(d) of the application to a question "was any Criminal Proceedings or disciplinary action instituted against you ?", If yes give details." It has come to light from the report of the Superintendent of Police, Trichy that he was involved in Thottaim Police Station Crime No. 37/86 under Secs. 147, 148, 341, 323, 332, 427, 115 and 307 of I.P.C. which was reported on 26-2-1986 and he is accused in the case and it is pending trial before the No. II Additional Sessions' Court, Trichy in S.C. No. 9/88. The case has been registered against the individual during the year 1986 but while he applied for the post of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate on 30-11-1990, he has stated nothing about the case in his application and thus he has wilfully suppressed the material information in his application.It has been clearly stated in the Commission's Instructions etc. to Candidates which are supplied to the candidates along with the application, under paragraph 29 that the applicants are warned that they will be debarred from appearing for the examinations and selections held by the Commissions permanently or for such period in case of suppression of material information regarding arrest, conviction etc. in their applications. to Candidates which are supplied to the candidates along with the application, under paragraph 29 that the applicants are warned that they will be debarred from appearing for the examinations and selections held by the Commissions permanently or for such period in case of suppression of material information regarding arrest, conviction etc. in their applications. Therefore in the memo first cited, the candidate was directed to show-cause as to why his application for direct recruitment to the post of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service 1989-91 should not be rejected and his provisional selection for the said post cancelled and why he should not be debarred from appearing for future examination and selection to be conducted by the Commission for such period as the Commission decides. The candidate in his explanation dated 31-12-1993 has stated that he signed the application form on 30-11-1990 and till that date he was not aware that he was implicated in a police case, that he did tell the truth regarding columns 16, 17, 18(a) to (d) of the application form that he contested the election and he was not at all arrested and remanded, that for item 18(d) of the application because of the above reasons, he mentioned 'No' against column 18(d) that he has written that there was no case pending against him quiet innocent of the complications and that he never received any letter from the Police Department that he has been implicated as an accused person. He has prayed that his explanation be accepted and no action need be taken and he might be pardoned and exonerated. The candidate in his letter dated 4-4-94, has stated that in connection with the criminal case pending against him on the file of the Assistant Session's Court, he was acquitted by the Honourable Assistant Session's Judge, Trichy from all charges on 23-2-1994 and in his Judgment it has been stated that he is innocent and he is not guilty. He prayed that his explanation might be accepted and he might be pardoned and exonerated.The Commission has examined the matter in detail and observed that though the individual has been acquitted by the Court, the fact that he has suppressed the material information regarding the criminal case pending against him in his application remains the same. The explanation of the candidate to the show cause notice cannot be accepted. The explanation of the candidate to the show cause notice cannot be accepted. For the suppression of the material information referred to above, the application of Thiru G. Ravanan for appointment by direct recruitment to the post of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service 1989-91 is rejected and his provisional selection for the said post is cancelled. He is further informed that for the above act, he should have been debarred permanently from appearing for the future examinations and selections to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. However the Commission has taken a lenient view in the matter and has decided to debar him for a period of one year with effect from 12-8-1994 from appearing for any of the future examinations and selections to be conducted by the Commission, as warranted under paragraph 29 of the Commission's Instructions etc. to candidates. Requests for reconsideration of this order will receive no attention." As stated earlier, entire case records in S.C. 9 of 1988 was placed before us. It could be seen therefrom that FIR was registered by the sub-Inspector of Police, Musiri on 26-2-1986. Petitioner's name is also included as one of the accused who was responsible for the incident that has happened on that date. Charge sheet was framed against petitioner on 11-7-1986 and under Tamil Nadu Public Properties (Prevention of Destruction and Loss) Act, 1982 and also under Secs. 147, 148, 115, 341, 323, 332, 427 and 307 of Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 149. Immediately he obtained anticipatory bail from this Court and on 8-1-1988 he presented himself before Second Class Judicial Magistrate, Musiri and he was served with all documents as contemplated under Sec. 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. The case was committed to the Assistant Sessions Judge on 18-1-1988. On the date when application was filed, he was on anticipatory bail and he knew that Sessions case is pending against him and he has also received all the documents pertaining to the case from Court after he presented himself in person. When he said that there is no criminal proceedings against him, that was a false statement to his knowledge.The decision reported in (Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Farhat Rasool) will have to be considered in this connection. In that case the candidate applied for the post of Assistant Engineer. When he said that there is no criminal proceedings against him, that was a false statement to his knowledge.The decision reported in (Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Farhat Rasool) will have to be considered in this connection. In that case the candidate applied for the post of Assistant Engineer. He applied for the post on 13-2-1988 declaring that he has passed B.E. examination in 1987 and secured 5608 marks out of 8000. But in fact candidate passed the examination only on 31-3-1988 as per notification issued by the Controller of Examinations and it was found that he had secured only 5569 marks out of 8000. Public Service Commission issued notice as to why his selection cannot be cancelled in view of false declaration made by him. Their Lordships of Honourable Supreme Court held that the candidate really played fraud by giving false information as to his eligibility and benefit of fraud cannot be allowed to him. Their Lordships in para 9 of the Judgment held thus, "..... The present is a case where almost a fraud was sought to be played by the respondent by giving wrong information as to his eligibility, benefit of which fraud cannot be allowed to the respondent." In (1996 Lab. IC 581) (Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran) also similar question came for consideration. The workman in that case obtained employment in railway service on the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer service cards. Their Lordships held that once fraud has been committed, they are not entitled to any sympathy and in para 6 of the Judgment, their Lordships held thus, "...... Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that these illiterate respondents were employed as casual labourers years back in 1983 and subsequently they have been given temporary status and, therefore, after passage of such a long time they should not be thrown out of employment. It is difficult to agree with this contention. By mere passage of time a fraudulent practice would not get any sanctity. The appellant authorities having come to know about the fraud of the respondents in obtaining employment as casual labourers, started departmental proceedings years back in 1987 and these proceedings have dragged on for a number of years. It is difficult to agree with this contention. By mere passage of time a fraudulent practice would not get any sanctity. The appellant authorities having come to know about the fraud of the respondents in obtaining employment as casual labourers, started departmental proceedings years back in 1987 and these proceedings have dragged on for a number of years. Earlier, removal orders of the respondents were set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and proceedings were remanded and after remand, fresh removal orders were passed by the appellant which have been set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and which are the subject-matter of the present proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants are estopped from recalling such fraudulently obtained employment orders of the respondents subject of course to following due procedure of law and in due compliance with the principles of natural justice, on which aspect there is no dispute between the parties. If any lenient view is taken on the facts of the present case in favour of the respondents, then it would amount to putting premium on dishonesty and sharp practice which on the facts of the present cases cannot be permitted." The principles enunciated in Bhaskaran's case (1996 Lab.IC 581) (cited supra) was reiterated in the decision reported in (1999 Lab.IC 1102) (Regional Manager v. Presiding Officer), though on the facts of the case their Lordships held that he must be treated as continuing in service. But their Lordships further declared that the decision is given only taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and will not be taken as precedent in future. From the facts and law stated above it is clear that writ petitioner knew that a criminal case is pending against him and he has materially suppressed those facts when he moved application. Petitioner cannot say that he is not aware of the seriousness about the conditions in prospectus and declaration. He was a practising advocate for six years and he is also well aware that he is applying for a post in judicial department where honesty and integrity are the main factors to be considered in selection. He cannot plead that he has been misled by various columns in the applications. He was a practising advocate for six years and he is also well aware that he is applying for a post in judicial department where honesty and integrity are the main factors to be considered in selection. He cannot plead that he has been misled by various columns in the applications. An argument was placed by learned Senior counsel that he was charge sheeted only in 1993 and only then he came to know that a criminal case is pending against him. But records show otherwise. After having obtained anticipatory bail, he himself received all the documents under Sec. 207, Crl.P.C. and also participated in committal enquiry. Petitioner is also well aware of the procedures under Criminal Procedure Code since he was practising on the criminal side. When he presented himself before the Judicial Magistrate, he knew that he is the first accused in the Sessions case. As rightly contended by learned counsel for Public Service Commission, true fact is to be stated in that column since the character and antecedent of the applicant is also relevant factor for appointment. When the candidate declared that he is not involved in criminal proceedings or that there is no disciplinary proceedings against him, the authorities take it that his antecedent and character are good and only on that basis selection is made. If he had already stated that he is an accused in a criminal case, he would not have been considered for the post. The declaration that he is not an accused is one of the reasons which persuaded first respondent in selecting petitioner to the post. There was a misrepresentation by petitioner. The contention in the affidavit that there was double question and petitioner was misled by the question is an argument raised only in the writ petition and not even in his explanation. It could also be seen from the Judgment in Sessions case that petitioner was acquitted only by giving him the benefit of doubt. Even though that may not be relevant to consider whether he has suppressed material facts, I am bound to answer the same since an argument was taken that when petitioner was acquitted it has the effect of erasing the charge retrospectively, and it absolves anything and everything.An argument was taken that instructions given to candidates have no legal force and these are only guidelines. This argument is not correct. This argument is not correct. So far as candidates from Public Service Commission are concerned, they cannot go beyond the instructions. An argument was also taken by learned Senior counsel that after selection is over, he has already been appointed by the Government and therefore Public Service Commission is not entitled to initiate any action against petitioner. Public Service Commission is not initiating any disciplinary proceedings against petitioner. They are only informing the appointing authority that petitioner has obtained employment by suppression of material fact and selection made by them is therefore liable to be cancelled. If the contention of learned Senior Counsel is accepted, it would mean that selection procured by fraud will be legalised if subsequent appointment is made on the basis of that selection. It is for the appointing authority to take such action against petitioner once his selection has been cancelled. Petitioner's name cannot be found among the approved select list once it is found that he has played fraud in procuring selection and he was not honest when he made representation. An argument was also placed by learned Senior Counsel that he has completed more than ten years service and if at this juncture he is outsed, he will be put to great hardship. Mere delay in cancelling selection will not legalise the fraud if in fact fraud has been committed. Even in the explanation submitted by petitioner he was not honest in stating the truth. Even in the explanation he reiterates that no case was pending at the time of filling up application. Only after verification of police records Public Service Commission issued notice to petitioner. Even then petitioner reiterates his original stand. It was in his presence committal proceedings was passed and he has received FIR on 8-1-1988. Petitioner again pleaded innocence and ignorance of pendency of criminal proceedings against him. That shows that he was never honest and he wanted to procure employment in judiciary by suppression of material fact.All appointments are made on the basis of the selection made by Public Service Commission. It is from the select list appointments are made. In the recruitment process, certain conditions have to be complied with for selection. It is within the jurisdiction of Public Service Commission to consider whether the candidate has satisfied those conditions in the recruitment process. It is from the select list appointments are made. In the recruitment process, certain conditions have to be complied with for selection. It is within the jurisdiction of Public Service Commission to consider whether the candidate has satisfied those conditions in the recruitment process. Therefore, Public Service Commission will be well within its jurisdiction to consider whether declaration and statement made by applicant are true or not. Clause 29 of the prospectus empowers the Public Service Commission to reconsider the selection already made. It is also duty bound to inform the appointing authority that a mistake has been committed by it in selecting a candidate who played fraud and an ineligible candidate has been selected. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs.