1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash order No. 433-EST of 1999 dated: 30-07-1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor/Jr. Scientist has been cancelled. Respondents vide Advertisement Notice No. 92/97 dated: 20-07-1997 advertised number of posts in various disciplines including the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Jr. Scientist, Entomology. 2. Petitioner applied for the post and came to be selected and appointed as Assistant Professor. Appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondents vide impugned order, the petitioner has challenged impugned order on the ground that respondents after scrutiny of the Application Form of the petitioner were aware that the petitioner is overage and in-service candidates and having considered his candidature; selected and appointed the petitioner, therefore, the cancellation of appointment is illegal. It is also stated that appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled without observing principles of natural justice, affording opportunity of being heard. 3. Respondents have filed objections, stating therein that petitioner came to be selected and appointed under bonafide mistake as he was not entitled to seek consideration for selection and appointment being over-aged and also being not in-service candidate. On his own showing his age, on 15-01-1998, was 57 years. He was not fulfilling the requisite conditions of the Advertisement Notice. Ineligibility of the petitioner could not be noticed at the time of scrutiny of the application forms and on account of bonafide mistake, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection process and came to be selected and appointed. Having noticed the mistake, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and other evidence on record. 5. So far as the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents after scrutinizing the application form of the petitioner, has selected and appointed him, therefore, respondents cannot turn back and cancel the appointment of the petitioner on the ground of over sight or mistake, is concerned it is seen that the Advertisement Notice under the General conditions stipulates that the candidate should not be more than 55 years as on 01-01-1997, upper age limit relaxable in case of persons already in employment of the University....� 6. Instruction No. 6 of the Miscellaneous Instructions annexed with the Advertisement Notice farther stipulate that candidate who may not be fulfilling all the requirements prescribed hereinabove, by the last date of receipt of application form need not apply.� 7. Petitioner admittedly on 01-01-1997 was over 55 years and not fulfilling the conditions of the Advertisement Notice and thus not entitled to seek consideration. His plea that respondents after scrutinizing the application form have selected and appointed him and they cannot take shelter under the cover of bonafide mistake has no substance. Petitioner instead of blaming the respondents was aware of the Miscellaneous Instruction No. 6 and the prescribed eligibility age which debars the petitioner to apply for the post being not fulfilling all the requirements. Despite that he knowingly applied for the post and sought consideration for selection by dishonest approach being an ineligible candidate. Dishonesty cannot be rewarded by offering appointment to the petitioner at the cost of deserving candidate. In such circumstances while dealing with dishonest approach the Supreme Court has ruled in Krishan Yadav Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1994 SC 2166 holding that:- The effect of setting aside the selection would mean the appointment held to by these 96 candidates (including the respondents) will have no right to go to the office. Normally, speaking, we should require them to disgorge the benefit of these ill-gotten gains. That means they will have to repay the entire salary and perks which they have received from the said office. But, here we show a streak of sympathy. For more than 4 years they were enjoying the benefit of office. The proper lesson would be learnt by them if their appointments are set aside teaching them that dishonesty could never pay.� 8. The petitioner for the mistake of the respondents is not entitled to seek the appointment by dishonest means. 9. So far as providing opportunity of being heard in observance of principles of natural justice is concerned, the petitioners appointment has been made because of mistake committed by the respondents and the petitioner even if would have been provided opportunity of being heard was not in a position to improve this case. Therefore, the appointment being illegal, the appointee is not entitled to be heard before cancellation of the appointment as held by the Constitution. Bench of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. etc. Therefore, the appointment being illegal, the appointee is not entitled to be heard before cancellation of the appointment as held by the Constitution. Bench of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. etc. Vs. B. Karunakar, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 observing that:- The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to up-held the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just right. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and Sundry occasions. Whether, in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of denial to him of the report has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case.......� 10. Providing opportunity to petitioner shall not have improved the case of the petitioner as his appointment is against the condition and the statutory eligibility notified in the Advertisement Notice. It is settled law that the Courts do not issue futile writs. Even if the writ is issued for observing principles of natural justice, the petitioner will not be in a position to meet the requirement of his eligibility and the writ issued will not yield any fruit. Under similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in S.L.Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan reported in AIR 1981 page 136 has held:- Whether the failure to observe natural - justice does at all mattes if the observance of natural justice would have made no difference when the admitted or indisputable facts speak for themselves. Where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice not because courts do not issue futile writs.� For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is dismissed.