Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. This matter relates to an issue created on the recruitment of a Junior Engineer (Civil) by the Madhubani Municipality. The petition was filed by one Binod Kumar on the ground that he holds a degree in Civil Engineering and he has been unsuited on the ground that he was over qualified. The learned Judge in his order dated 28 July, 1997 on CWJC. No. 12899 of 1993 was of the view that when a selection to a public post is being made and there is a basic qualification, earlier the qualification, in context, stood as a diploma in Civil Engineering subsequently as a degree in Civil Engineering, there is no such thing as over qualification. The candidates were to be considered on merits. The fact that the petitioner Binod Kumar was unsuited on the ground that he was over qualified was certified to be as incorrect and the Municipality was directed to consider the case afresh of the petitioner along with others on merits. 2. Perhaps, respondent No. 3 (Jata Shankar Jha) as arrayed in the writ petition felt aggrieved by the Courts decision that the matter may have to be relooked by the Municipality by yet going into an exercise in selecting the candidate on merits, filed the present appeal. 3. By the time the Court is being called upon to consider the merits on the decision of the writ petition, the decision being 28 July, 1997, the issues are at a tangent delivering from previous issues. 4. In so far as the issue on over qualification is concerned that apparently is now becoming a side issue. We have no hesitation in holding that in public employment any body who is worth his salt and is qualified may hold the post. For instance, even if a chaprasi, holds a doctorate, and in a State which faces rampant unemployment, and the first job which comes his way is that of Category 4, he cannot be rejected only on the ground that he holds a doctorate and is over qualified. One good job is as good as any other job when there is a dire necessity to be employed. 5. In this Letters Patent Appeal, it is clear that there is an apprehension of the appellant-respondent (No. 3) that he may see himself out of a job. One good job is as good as any other job when there is a dire necessity to be employed. 5. In this Letters Patent Appeal, it is clear that there is an apprehension of the appellant-respondent (No. 3) that he may see himself out of a job. Since the matter is to be considered afresh on merits the Court will refrain making any comparison between the candidates. Suffice it to say that this is for the Municipality and its committee and the manner in which the candidates will be considered. 6. The issue in appeal was already side track when an application was filed by the Municipality raising an issue that the respondent No. 3 be not paid. This was on the basis of an interlocutory application No. 8895 of 1999. The order on the interlocutory application, in effect, was that if work will be taken from an employee payment will follow. 7. Today, it is being debated before the Court as rival contentions by the Municipality that appellant-respondent Jata Shankar Jha is not working whereas counsel for the appellant says that he is. The Court will not decide on this issue, as the order already had spelt out that payment will follow on work being discharged. 8. On record of the appeal material is being placed on behalf of the Municipality that the appellant-respondent Jata Shankar Jha far from being qualified for being considered to the post is, in fact, not qualified. It is contended that he does not hold a diploma in Mechanical Engineering and it was discovered subsequently that the diploma he obtained from a polytechnic in Allahabad was forged. The question is that there is no reflection on this point in the writ petition. This Court has only to certify whether the decision of the learned Judge on this certiorari action sought is correct or incorrect. That point is over. 9. If the contention of the Municipality is accepted, then, even Counsel for the Municipality accepts that there is corruption within the Municipality. The counter affidavit which has been filed in the writ petition by a so called Special Officer, Madhubani Municipality does not reflect on what is being told in this appeal. That point is over. 9. If the contention of the Municipality is accepted, then, even Counsel for the Municipality accepts that there is corruption within the Municipality. The counter affidavit which has been filed in the writ petition by a so called Special Officer, Madhubani Municipality does not reflect on what is being told in this appeal. The deponent one Vir Bahadur Kumar filing the counter affidavit on behalf of the Madhubani Municipality and as a Special Officer, which the deponent is, conveniently keeps a reserve card in the pocket to say that the deponent reserves his right to file a detailed parawise reply to the petition if so required or directed by the Court. The counter affidavit which has been filed, it is declared in the affidavit, is without entering into a parawise reply to the petition. 10. Counsel accepts that there has been collusion within the ranks of the Municipality and the appellant respondent No. 3. The Court would not know because the real story never emerged. Then it is contended that this appellant-respondent faces trial on this issue. Why was this not said in the writ petition? 11. One factor missing away from the truth erodes the sanctity of the proceedings and the principle of res judicata will never be applicable if decisions are made on concealed facts. 12. In the present case, the Municipality at every given time had the opportunity to place the facts correctly but avoided it. When the Municipality gets caught behind the slips, now it wants to come out with a defence that the respondent, who had otherwise been recruited initially as a daily wager had forged qualification. Why was he recruited at all? 13. In so for as the plea of forgery by the appellant- respondent is concerned, the Municipality cannot evade its responsibility and the Special Officer who filed an affidavit and did not tell the correct story or any other staffer who touched the file are all responsible. If they are retired their pensions are to be stopped, if they are in service, dismissal. Either way they should face an inquiry for having told the wrong story to the High Court and it does not matter if it leads to the dismissal or stoppage of their pension. 14. If they are retired their pensions are to be stopped, if they are in service, dismissal. Either way they should face an inquiry for having told the wrong story to the High Court and it does not matter if it leads to the dismissal or stoppage of their pension. 14. In so far as the decision on the petition is concerned, the consideration afresh may take place on merits with parties relegated to as on the date of the Judgment on the writ petition. 15. Initially, in the circumstances, this appeal cannot succeed as the decision on it is not incorrect and the issues in the letters patent appeal apparently have transgressed on other issues upon which the Court has reflected. 16. Thus, this appeal stands dismissed.