ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 3rd January 2006 passed in W.P.No. 1685/2001 by the learned single Judge of this Court, the appellants have filed this writ appeal. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: The respondents/petitioners were appointed to the post of General Mazdoor Category-1 vide order dated 22.10.1995. Copies of their appointment orders have been filed as Annexure P-I and P-2 before the writ court. According to the terms and conditions of the appointment, the services of the respondents/petitioners were terminable at any time, if it is found that the respondents/petitioners have produced false certificates of educational qualifications, residence, caste etc., either at the time of interview or at the time of appointment. The respondents had also given verification that their services may be terminated in case the information submitted by them is false. The service of the respondents were terminated vide order dated 22/2310-1997 (AImexureP-3 in the writ petition) on the ground that the I.T.I, examination certificates produced by the respondents/petitioners were not genuine as on verification of their certificates from the Secretary, State Board of Examination, Sanchanalay, Rojgar Evam Prasikshan, Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, it was informed to the appellants that the certificates are forged (Annexure A-5). The respondents were not given show cause notices before passing the impugned order of termination dated 22/23-10-1997 which was a common order in relation to six such persons including two respondents. This order was challenged before the writ court in the said writ petition only on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice. The writ court (learned single Judge) took the view that even in order to come to conclusion that the certificates were false and were not genuine, there should be an enquiry and the employees cannot be condemned without affording them an opportunity of hearing to present their case. The writ court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University and others•, and quashed the impugned order Annexure P-3 and allowed the writ petition by further allowing the entitlement of the respondents to receive 30% of back-wages. This has been challenged by the appellants/management in this appeal. 3. The writ court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Basudeo Tiwary Vs. Sido Kanhu University and others•, and quashed the impugned order Annexure P-3 and allowed the writ petition by further allowing the entitlement of the respondents to receive 30% of back-wages. This has been challenged by the appellants/management in this appeal. 3. Shri P.S. Koshy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has argued that the respondents have not disputed their termination by taking a plea that, in fact, the certificates of the I. T.I, examination, produced by them, were not fake and were genuine. He would submit that observance of principles of natural justice was not required in their cases and the Court's discretion of issuance of writ in such matters was not justified because it would be a case of indisputable factual position and in such matters only one conclusion would be possible rendering the entire exercise to be futile. He referred to the contents of the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto, particularly the representation of one of the respondents filed as Annexure P-4. 4. Per contra, 8hri D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the respondents were working as General Mazdoor Category-l since long back and the order of termination was major penalty, therefore, the authorities of the appellants were required to follow the principles of natural justice before termination of services of the respondents. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ appeal as also the writ petition. 6. In the matter of M C.Mehta Vs. Union of India2 the Apex Court held that if on the admitted or indisputable factual position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the Court need not issue a writ merely because there has been a violation of principles of naturaljustice. 7. In the matter of A.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Koneti Venkateswarulu and other;, the Apex Court further held that if false information is given in an application form, the rejection of candidature was proper, eveI1 when the false/incorrect information given in part of form which was not applicable to the candidate and the plea that it was irrelevant or emanated from inadvertence was not tenable. Koneti Venkateswarulu and other;, the Apex Court further held that if false information is given in an application form, the rejection of candidature was proper, eveI1 when the false/incorrect information given in part of form which was not applicable to the candidate and the plea that it was irrelevant or emanated from inadvertence was not tenable. The Apex Court said that if some information is sought, as to purpose for which the information is called, the employer is the ultimate judge and it is not open to the candidate to sit in judgment about the relevance of the information called for and decide to supply it or not. 8. Further in the matter of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India4, the Apex Court held that "The principles of natural justice may not be applicable . in a given case unless a prejudice is shown. The application of the said principles is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise." The Apex Court said that "The court of law does not insist on compliance of principles of natural justice with useless formality. It will not issue any such direction where the result would remain the same, in view of the fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences." It was a case in which the selection of the appellant employee was illegal as he was not qualified on the cut-off date. The Apex Court held that being ineligible to be considered for appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an opportunity of being heard. 9. In the present case the facts are clear and admitted. It is a case in which the respondents have been terminated on account of production of forged and fake I.T.I. examination certificates. The respondents have not come with a case that their certificates were not forged or fake or they had produced genuine and correct certificates. They have also not challenged the verification report of the concerned authority which is referred to in the termination order. We have gone through the contents of the writ petition. No pleadings are there relating to genuineness of the 1. T.L Certificates produced by them or that they had not produced such certificates. Even in the representation filed by respondent no.1 Naval Kishore Mishra (Annexure P-4), no plea has been taken that he has been removed on a false or incorrect ground. No pleadings are there relating to genuineness of the 1. T.L Certificates produced by them or that they had not produced such certificates. Even in the representation filed by respondent no.1 Naval Kishore Mishra (Annexure P-4), no plea has been taken that he has been removed on a false or incorrect ground. In the writ petition and in the representation, single plea has been taken that of the non-observance of the principles of natural justice and nothing-else. Whether in such a situation, where the respondents have not challenged the termination on the ground that on a wrong pretext they have been terminated or they were having genuine certificates, observance of principles of natural justice was necessary? In our considered view, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, observance of principles of natural justice was not necessary, because, if the certificates produced by them before the competent authority are not claimed to be genuine, the direction for holding an enquiry and coming to the same conclusion would be a futile exercise. The judgment relied by the learned single Judge is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, pursuant to a resolution made by the syndicate on 24.01.1986, the order of 4th of Feb. 1986 was made appointing the appellant as lecturer. Thereafter the appellant made a representation to the Vice Chancellor for regularization of his service in terms of the relevant statutes of the University and on the basis that he had been working as a lecturer in an affiliated college w1der private management before the same was taken over a constituent unit of the University. By letter dated 07.05.1993, the appellant was informed that his representation had been turned down by the Vice Chancellor. By another communication, he was informed that the Vice Chancellor had directed for the termination of the services of the appellant on the ground that on 24.1.1986, the Syndicate had no power to make appointment of the Lecturer and, therefore, his appointment was not lawful. The High Court took the view that the appointment of the appellant made by the Syndicate of the University by its resolution dated 24.1.1986 was illegal and on that basis took the view that the termination of the services was in order. The High Court took the view that the appointment of the appellant made by the Syndicate of the University by its resolution dated 24.1.1986 was illegal and on that basis took the view that the termination of the services was in order. It is in this situation the Supreme Court, referring to provisions of section 35(3) of the Bihar Universities Act (27 of 1951) held that in order to arrive at a conclusion that an appointment was contrary to the provisions of the Act, statute or regulations etc., a finding has to be recorded and unless such a finding is recorded the termination cannot be made. But to arrive at such a conclusion, necessarily, an enquiry will have to be made as to whether such appointment was contrary to the provisions of the Act etc. The Apex Court held that if in a given case such exercise is absent, then the condition precedent stands unfulfilled. To arrive at such a finding, necessarily enquiry notice will have to be held and in holding such an enquiry the person whose appointment is under enquiry will have to be issued to him and then the orders would be passed. 10. In the instant case, the enquiry in relation to any fact would not be necessary as the facts relating to production of fake and false certificates have not been disputed or challenged by the appellants. Even during the course of arguments before us, that ground was not taken. Therefore, the instant case is distinguishable on facts from the case of Basudeo Tiwaryl (supra) in which the Apex Court held that an enquiry was needed for recording a finding in relation to grounds of termination of services of the employee. 11. Shri D.N.Prajapati, has also argued that LTL pass was not an essential qualification for appointment to the post of General Mazdoor Category-I. He referred to a document, Letter dated 14/15.3.2008 addressed to the Public Information Officer, S.E.C.L., Bilaspur, by the Regional Public Information Officer, Baikunthpur area in a matter of information sought by a third party, which was filed along with LA.No.3 before us. In the said document, at Pg.No.4, Para 6 it has been mentioned that no educational qualification is required for the post of General Mazdoor, but the standard of I.T.I has been fixed by the State Government. In the said document, at Pg.No.4, Para 6 it has been mentioned that no educational qualification is required for the post of General Mazdoor, but the standard of I.T.I has been fixed by the State Government. His submission was that since no qualification was required for appointment to the said post, termination on the ground of production of such certificates of I.T.I was not good. We are unable to accept such argument. In A.P Public Service Commission case3 (supra), the false/incorrect information was given in that part of the forn1 which was not applicable to the candidate. Holding the rejection proper, the Apex Court laid down that "As to the purpose for which the information was called, the employer is the ultimate Judge. Relevance of the information cannot be judged by the candidate". In the present case also, it may be that selections would have been made on the basis of I.T.I certificates as the standard of I.T.I has been . , fixed by the State or such certificates may have been given some weightage in the process of selection of the candidates which we do not know because the employer was the ultimate Judge or all this. What was the relevance of these certificates is not to be judged by the respondents/petitioners and the respondents cannot be allowed to pray for ignoring the said certificates. 12. For the foregoing discussions, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned single judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. 13. There shall be no orders as to costs. Petition Dismissed.