G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS special appeal is directed against the order dated 8. 2. 2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 13981 of 1995 preferred by Kamakhya Narain Singh. ( 2 ) KAMAKHYA Narain Singh (writ petitioner and respondent in the special appeal) was an applicant for the post of Fire and Rescue Operator with the National Airport Authority. After preliminary physical measurement and written test which was held on 6. 9. 1992 he was directed to appear for final selection in the office of Senior Aerodrome Officer, National Airport authority. Safdarganj, New Delhi. He competed in the final selection and was thereafter nominated for training subject to production of police verification. In this connection, he was required to submit a declaration in a prescribed proforma known as attestation form for verification of character and antecedents, which he did. Subsequently he was informed by a letter dated 6. 9. 1994 that as he had given false information in column 12 of the aforesaid form and had suppressed material facts, his selection for the post of Fire and Rescue Operator was cancelled. The respondent then filed the writ petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid order dated 16. 9. 1994 and also prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) to appoint him on the post of Fire and Rescue Operator. The writ petition was filed on 22. 5. 1995 and on 8. 2. 2000 a learned single Judge passed the following order which has been challenged In this appeal : "this petition was filed in the year 1995. No counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondent prays and is allowed six weeks more time to file counter-affidavit. In the meantime, the petitioner shall be allowed to join and shall be paid salary. " ( 3 ) SRI V. K. Singh learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the facts of the case, the impugned order directing that the writ petitioner shall be allowed to join and shall be paid salary has been wrongly passed and a relief which could not be granted even at the stage of the final hearing has been granted by means of an interim order. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) has supported the order passed by the learned single Judge. Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner) has supported the order passed by the learned single Judge. ( 4 ) BEFORE coming to the merits of the controversy raised, it is necessary to mention that though the writ petition was filed in office on 22. 5. 1995 but prior to 25. 8. 1999 no order had been passed directing the appellant to file any counter-affidavit. The record shows that on 24. 5,1995, on the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was ordered to be listed in the second week of July, 1995. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 13. 7. 1995 and was restored on 5. 8. 1996, It was only on 25. 8. 1999 an order was passed directing the counsel for the petitioner to carry out amendment in the writ petition within three days and the counsel for the respondents in the writ petition (appellants in the special appeal) was granted two months and no more time to file counter-affidavit. On 8. 12. 1999 the appellants counsel was granted one month time to file counter-affidavit and thereafter on 8. 2. 2000 the impugned order was passed. The order-sheet, therefore, shows that though the petition was filed on 22. 5. 1995 but it was only on 25. 8. 1999 that the appellants were directed to file counter-affidavit. No blame, therefore, could be laid on the appellants for having not filed a counter-affidavit from the time of the filing of the writ petition in May, 1995 till August, 1999 as the writ petitioner himself was not keen in persuing the matter. ( 5 ) AS mentioned earlier, the writ petitioner submitted an attestation form for verification of character and antecedents which was verified by him on 8. 10. 1993. On the top left hand side of the form the word "warning" is written in bold letters. ( 5 ) AS mentioned earlier, the writ petitioner submitted an attestation form for verification of character and antecedents which was verified by him on 8. 10. 1993. On the top left hand side of the form the word "warning" is written in bold letters. On the left side, it is mentioned as follows (i) giving a false information or concealment of correct information shall be treated as disqualification and the applicant may be treated as disqualified for appointment ; (ii) If the applicant is detained or is sentenced subsequent to submission of the form, he shall immediately give information of the same and non-supply of such an information shall be treated as concealment of correct information ; and (iii) If during the course of service, it was revealed that the applicant had given false information or had concealed correct information, his services may be terminated. Column 12 of the form reads as follows : ( Were you ever arrested? yes/no ( Have you ever been prosecuted? Yes/no ( Have you ever been kept in Jail? Yes/no ( Were you ever bound down? Yes/no ( Were you ever sentenced to pay fine by a Yes/no court? ( Were you ever rusticated or debarred by any University Yes/noor education body? while filling in the form, the petitioner scored out the word "yes" in every column and his reply was "no" meaning thereby that he had never been arrested in any criminal case. It was subsequently brought to the notice of the appellants that a criminal case under Section 498a, i. P. C. had been registered against the writ petitioner in which he had been detained and had been subsequently enlarged on bail. It was on account of this concealment of material fact and giving false information that the selection of the appellant was cancelled by the order dated 6. 9. 1994, ( 6 ) SRI V. K. Singh learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the fact that the F. I. R. had been lodged against the writ petitioner and that in connection therewith, he was detained and was subsequently released on bail is admitted by him In the writ petition. 9. 1994, ( 6 ) SRI V. K. Singh learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the fact that the F. I. R. had been lodged against the writ petitioner and that in connection therewith, he was detained and was subsequently released on bail is admitted by him In the writ petition. Thus there is absolutely no dispute that he had given false information in the attestation form and consequently the direction issued by the Impugned order that the writ petitioner shall be allowed to join and shall be paid salary is wholly illegal. Sri R. K. Jain has, however, submitted that though a criminal case was registered against the writ petitioner but subsequently there was a compromise and the said criminal case ended in acquittal and the final verdict was in his favour. Therefore, his selection could not have been cancelled. ( 7 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that a criminal case under Section 498a had been registered against the petitioner and he had been detained and was subsequently released on bail. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him to mention the aforesaid fact while filling in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of column 12 of the attestation form. He could have mentioned additional fact that there was a compromise in the criminal case and subsequently, it ended in acquittal. Non-disclosure of the aforesaid fact cannot be justified in any manner. In Delhi Administration through its Chief secretary v. Sushil Kumar, JT 1996 (10) SC 34, the selection of a person as constable was cancelled on the ground that he had not disclosed the fact that he had been prosecuted in a criminal case under Sections 324 and 304. I. P. C, even though he had been acquitted in the said case. The cancellation of selection was challenged by him. The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld his claim and directed his appointment. In appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Tribunal and held that if the appointing authority did not find it desirable to appoint such a person, the view taken by it cannot be said to be unwarranted. In our opinion, the ratio of this case supports the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. In appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Tribunal and held that if the appointing authority did not find it desirable to appoint such a person, the view taken by it cannot be said to be unwarranted. In our opinion, the ratio of this case supports the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Sri R, K. Jain has placed reliance on Commissioner of Police v. Dhaval Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2326 in support of his submission that the Selection of writ petitioner should not have been cancelled. In our opinion, this authority is distinguishable on facts as though initially the candidate had not disclosed about the pendency of the criminal case but later on himself wrote a letter informing the authorities about the said fact before any order of appointment could be issued in his favour. There is no material on record to show that the writ petitioner had disclosed about the lodging of the criminal case at any stage. ( 8 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration. The impugned order virtually grants a relief which may be granted to the writ petitioner at the disposal of the writ petition if his claim is found to be sustainable. In State of U. P. v. Kumari Renu Tiwari, 1993 uplbec 1325, a Division Bench of our Court after considering several decisions of Apex Court held as follows : "an interim order is generally passed to preserve the state of affairs obtaining on the date of institution of the proceedings. It Is seldom passed to alter that position. Thus an interim order may be passed to restrain the respondent from interfering In the possession of the petitioner over an immovable property, or to stay the operation of an order of termination of service which has not taken effect or to stay the alteration in the scale of pay. Moreover, the learned single Judge has granted to the respondent the relief which may be granted to him at the disposal of the writ petition if his claim is found to be sustainable. There is no indication in the judgment as to how the appellants will be restored to the original position, if the writ petition ultimately fails. Accordingly, for all practical purpose, the relief granted to the respondent through the judgment under appeal is final. There is no indication in the judgment as to how the appellants will be restored to the original position, if the writ petition ultimately fails. Accordingly, for all practical purpose, the relief granted to the respondent through the judgment under appeal is final. Such an order/judgment given at the interim stage cannot be sustained. " ( 9 ) SIMILAR view was taken in U. P. Junior Doctors Committee v. B. Sheetal Nandwani, JT 1992 (1) SC 571 and Committee of Management v. Sushil Kumar Sharma, 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1263. Recently in Special Appeal No. 1230 of 1999, Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. v. The Director (D. O. T.), decided on 3. 3. 2000 a similar order passed by a learned single Judge directing the employer to continue the writ petitioner in service and pay him salary was set aside on this ground. ( 10 ) WE are, therefore, of the considered view that on the facts of the present case, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge to the effect that the writ petitioner shall be allowed to join and shall be paid salary is wholly unjustified and is liable to be set aside. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the special appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of the learned single Judge in so far as it directs that writ petitioner shall be allowed to join and shall be paid salary is set aside. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the special appeal and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion regarding the merits of the claim made by the parties.