JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Punjab National Bank. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.2009, Annexure-3 passed by the Chief Manager, HRD Department, Circle Office, Punjab National Bank, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), whereunder his appointment for the post of subordinate staff in the Bank has been cancelled on the ground that he is a graduate whereas required qualification for the subordinate staff is 12th pass. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order dated 11.9.2009, Annexure-3 is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as for possessing higher qualification than what is minimum required for the post is no misconduct and his candidature for appointment as subordinate staff ought not to have been cancelled for possessing higher qualification of graduate. 4. Having noticed the aforesaid submission, this Court under orders dated 29.11.2009, at the request of the counsel for the Bank, adjourned the matter to 3.11.2009 so as to enable learned counsel for the Bank to inform this Court as to why candidature of the petitioner for appointment as subordinate staff has been cancelled for possessing higher qualification. In response to such order, counsel for the Bank has filed counter affidavit annexing very many documents and with reference to the documents annexed with the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that appointment on the post of subordinate staff was made on the basis of the names received from the Employment Exchange where the petitioner was registered as Intermediate and the Exchange in appreciation of such qualification had recommended his name alongwith others who had similar qualification of Intermediate for being considered for appointment on the post of subordinate staff. In appreciation of Intermediate qualification, petitioner was asked to appear in the interview on 23.3.2009 when he submitted his certificate of having passed Intermediate from Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, which is dated 10.11,2004 annexed with the counter affidavit, Intermediate certificate was produced by him categorically stating that he has not bettered his qualification in the meanwhile and signed the attendance sheet which indicated that he was Intermediate and in appreciation of the fact that petitioner was Intermediate and not graduate, offer for appointment as subordinate staff was issued to the petitioner. Later, when the petitioner joined, the authorities of the Bank could learn that he has become graduate in Political Science (Hons.) in the year 2007, as is evident from his marks-sheet and the provisional certificate annexed with the counter affidavit. The fact that petitioner had become graduate in 2007 was required to be brought to the notice of the Employment Exchange earlier as also to the notice of the Bank when he appeared for interview on 23.3.2009, but having misrepresented before the authorities of the Exchange as also the Bank, he got his nomination from the Exchange and later was also selected as subordinate staff on the basis that he was only Intermediate and not graduate. It is further submitted on behalf of the Bank that had the petitioner informed the Exchange about his having become graduate, the Exchange in the first place itself ought not to have recommended him for consideration and if for any reason, he was recommended by the Exchange, then at the time of interview had the Bank been aware that he had become graduate, the bank ought not to have allowed him to appear in the interview for the subordinate staff and offered him the post of subordinate staff. 5. In rejoinder, counsel for the petitioner explained the circumstances in which petitioner became graduate and could not inform such fact to the Exchange as also to the Bank authorities at the time of interview. 6. The fact that the petitioner misrepresented before the authorities of the Exchange as also before the authorities of the Bank at the time of interview on 23.3.2009 is not reflected in the impugned order dated 11.9.2009, Annexure-3 and the facts constituting misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner cannot be imported/ read in the impugned order by this Court on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit, as it is well known that the public order is to be appreciated on the basis of the contents of the order and not on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit. Reference in this connection may be made to the celebrated order rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay V/s. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR (39) 1952 Supreme Court 16, paragraph 9 and in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another V/s. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851, paragraph 8. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties and having found no iota of material indicating misrepresentation by the petitioner during the selection process or before the employment exchange itself, I set aside the impugned order dated 11.9.2009, Annexure-3 to this application and direct the Bank to either accept the joining of the petitioner or to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law giving reasons as to why the Bank is not inclined to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of subordinate staff. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.