Judgment :- Sanjay Kumar, J. Candidature of the appellant, selected for award of the Indane Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distributorship at Yerraguntla, Kadapa District, was cancelled by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited under proceedings dated 13.10.2009 on the ground that he had furnished wrong information. His challenge to the said proceedings in Writ Petition No.22739 of 2009 having failed, the appellant is now before us. 2. Earlier invalidation of the appellant’s candidature on the same ground under the Corporation’s proceedings dated 10.03.2009 was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.6694 of 2009 as the appellant was not given any notice or opportunity prior thereto. The Corporation was however given the liberty to initiate the process afresh by calling for the appellant’s explanation and conducting an enquiry. The Corporation thereupon issued him the Show Cause Notice dated 24.04.2009 informing him that upon verification, the experience certificate dated 20.06.2007 produced by him was found to be incorrect and calling upon him to show cause as to why his candidature for award of the subject Distributorship should not be cancelled. The appellant was also informed that the verification was consequent to the complaint made by one N.Vijaya Saradhi, the second empanelled candidate for award of the subject Distributorship. 3. In his explanation dated 30.05.2009, the appellant stressed upon the fact that he had been awarded 3.7 marks towards experience out of a maximum of 4 marks in the interview and that as per the guidelines the performance at the interview was of paramount importance. As regards the experience certificate dated 20.06.2007 issued by M/s.Sri Sreenivasa Gas Agencies, Tirupati, he stated that he was only appointed as a Supervisor on temporary basis and was therefore not on their rolls. He further stated that when he confronted the proprietor of the said Agencies as to why he had denied the contents of the experience certificate, he was informed that N.Vijaya Saradhi, the second empanelled candidate, had threatened and coerced the proprietor into doing so. He pointed out that the issuance of the experience certificate was admitted by the proprietor of the Agencies and consequently, furnishing of wrong information by him did not arise. 4. He pointed out that the issuance of the experience certificate was admitted by the proprietor of the Agencies and consequently, furnishing of wrong information by him did not arise. 4. Basing upon the enquiry held in the matter by the Chief Area Manager of the Corporation, the impugned proceedings dated 13.10.2009 were issued recording that the appellant had not worked with M/s.Sri Sreenivasa Gas Agencies, Tirupati, and the experience certificate produced by him in this regard was false. As the appellant was found to have furnished wrong information rendering him ineligible for award of the subject Distributorship, as per clause 17 of the application, the Corporation cancelled his candidature. 5. The learned single Judge, while considering the appellant’s challenge to the said proceedings, found that his candidature for award of the subject Distributorship was supported by the experience certificate dated 20.06.2007 but verification of the same reflected that he had not worked with M/s.Sri Sreenivasa Gas Agencies, Tirupati, as claimed by him. The learned Judge accordingly held that the situation fell within the ambit of clauses 16 and 17 of the application, vitiating the very eligibility of the appellant for award of the subject Distributorship. The learned Judge drew support from the judgments of the Supreme Court in SHIV KANT YADAV V/s. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (2007) 4 SCC 410 and B.R.CHOWDHURY V/s. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (2004) 2 SCC 177 in this regard and dismissed the writ petition by order dated 25-11-2011. 6. Sri V.R.N.Prashanth, learned counsel representing M/s.Indus Law Firm, counsel for the appellant, argued that the Corporation had again failed to abide by the principles of natural justice as reliance was placed upon material collected behind the back of the appellant while cancelling his candidature. He further contended that the performance of the appellant at the interview being the primary consideration under the guidelines, the experience certificate produced by him was of comparably lesser importance and the Corporation therefore ought not to have cancelled his empanelment in connection therewith. 7. He further contended that the performance of the appellant at the interview being the primary consideration under the guidelines, the experience certificate produced by him was of comparably lesser importance and the Corporation therefore ought not to have cancelled his empanelment in connection therewith. 7. It may be noticed that candidature of an applicant for award of a LPG Distributorship, in the normal course, would be assessed under the following heads: (1) Capability to provide infrastructure … 35 marks (2) Capability to provide finance … 35 marks (3) Educational qualifications … 15 marks (4) Age … 4 marks (5) Experience … 4 marks (6) Business ability/acumen … 5 marks (7) Personality … 2 marks 100 marks 8. In so far as the subject Distributorship is concerned, as the same was reserved for Scheduled Caste category, candidates would not be assessed on their capability to provide infrastructure and finance as the Corporation is required to provide the same as per the guidelines. The candidates would therefore be assessed only under the other parameters. Upon such assessment, the appellant emerged the most meritorious with 29 out of 30 marks. N.Vijaya Saradhi, the second empanelled candidate, secured 27 out of 30 marks. The guidelines posit that evaluation of the candidates under the heads pertaining to experience; business ability/acumen and personality would be based upon the interview. The relevant extract of the guidelines in so far as experience is concerned reads as under: Parameter Sub Head Description Max Evaluation Marks Experi- Direct Sale/ 4 Marks to be awarded based ence Home Delivered on information in the applic- Products (incl- ation for experience of runn- uding LPG dist- ing or working in an establi- ributorship) shment for minimum one y- ear. Marks will be awarded Or on the quality rather than a- Other Petroleum 3 mount of expeience. The q- prodcts uality of experience will be Or judged based on the respon- Any other Trade 2 se to the questions related to Experience in direct sale, H- Sub Total 4 ome delivered products. Maximum marks hospitality/service industry etc by the candidates in the Interview. 9. Clause 12 of the application form pertains to experience. The clause and the responses of the appellant thereto read as under: 12. Experience Do you have experience of running or working in any of the establishments dealing in the following for minimum one year? Please give full details chronologically. 9. Clause 12 of the application form pertains to experience. The clause and the responses of the appellant thereto read as under: 12. Experience Do you have experience of running or working in any of the establishments dealing in the following for minimum one year? Please give full details chronologically. Type of experience Name and Period Number of years address of the establishment/ From To institution etc. Direct Sale/ Home Sri Srinivas Jan. Oct. 2 Years Delivered products Gas Agencies, 2003 2005 (Including LPG Akkaram Palli Distributorship) Road, TPT. Other Petroleum Working as Oct. Till …… Copy Products P.A..to M.L.A., 2005 date encl- Tirupati. sed Any other Trade Sri Balaji Aug. Sept. 5 Years Coop. House 94 99 Bld. Society Ltd, TPT. Note: Marks will be awarded based on the information given on the information given in the application and on answers leading questions in connection with experience claimed during interview, On verification if it is found that the information given is incorrect/false/misrepresented then the applicant’s candidature will stand cancelled and will not be eligible for distributorship. 10. Clauses 16 and 17 of the appellant’s application form which are relevant for the purposes of this case are also extracted below: “16. DECLARATION BY THE APPLICANT I am aware that inter se suitability of candidates will be decided by evaluation of candidates on the document based marks and interaction (interview). Evaluation on document based marks will be done based on the information given by me/us in this application. On verification by the Oil Company if it is found that the information given by me/us is incorrect/false/ misrepresented then my/our candidature will stand cancelled and I/We will be declared ineligible for LPG Distributorship. I also confirm that I am in possession of the supporting documents in original for the information given by me in this application and if selected, failure to present these documents in original will result in cancellation of selection due to submission of false/unsupported information in documents. ……… 17. UNDERTAKING I, P.Lakshmi Narayana son of Shri P.Narasimhulu hereby confirm that the information given above is true and correct. Any wrong information/misrepresentation/ suppression of facts will make me ineligible for this LPG Distributorship.” 11. The appellant, having secured maximum marks, was empanelled at Sl.No.1 in the merit panel for award of the subject Distributorship. ……… 17. UNDERTAKING I, P.Lakshmi Narayana son of Shri P.Narasimhulu hereby confirm that the information given above is true and correct. Any wrong information/misrepresentation/ suppression of facts will make me ineligible for this LPG Distributorship.” 11. The appellant, having secured maximum marks, was empanelled at Sl.No.1 in the merit panel for award of the subject Distributorship. While so, N.Vijaya Saradhi, the second empanelled candidate, submitted a written complaint dated 16.01.2009 alleging that the appellant had furnished a false certificate of experience. The experience certificate dated 20.06.2007 produced by the appellant from M/s.Sri Sreenivasa Gas Agencies stated that the appellant was appointed as a Show Room Supervisor on temporary basis from January, 2003 to October, 2005. The Corporation thereupon addressed M/s.Sri Sreenivasa Gas Agencies, Tirupati, for necessary clarification. By letter dated 13.02.2009, the proprietor of the said Agencies admitted that he had issued the experience certificate produced by the appellant but stated that the same was given by him only due to the persistent requests of the appellant who was a relation and close acquaintance and that the appellant had, in fact, not worked with the Agencies. Documentary proof in the form of attendance and wage registers pertaining to the relevant periods was also produced. It was on the basis of this letter that the Corporation declared the appellant to be ineligible in the first instance under its proceedings dated 10.03.2009. The same having been set aside by this Court for violation of the principles of natural justice, the process was initiated afresh and culminated in the impugned proceedings holding to the same effect. 12. The record demonstrates that the appellant was put on notice of the allegations against him under the Show Cause Notice dated 24.04.2009; material in support thereof was furnished to him; his explanation was called for; a detailed enquiry was held in the matter and a final decision was taken thereafter. 13. Trite to state, this Court would not sit in appeal over such a decision. Only the decision making process would be subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this regard, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Corporation again failed to abide by the norms as reliance was placed upon undisclosed material. Only the decision making process would be subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this regard, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Corporation again failed to abide by the norms as reliance was placed upon undisclosed material. Reference in this regard is made to the letter dated 08.08.2009 issued by M/s.Sri Sreenivasa Gas Agencies, Tirupati, which finds mention in the impugned proceedings. Learned counsel pointed out that the enquiry against the appellant concluded on 07.08.2009 and he was thus ignorant of the contents of the letter dated 08.08.2009 relied upon by the Corporation while passing the final order. He therefore contended that the Corporation had again failed to follow the principles of natural justice and that the impugned proceedings require to be set aside on this short ground. 14. Having given our earnest consideration to this aspect, we find the contention of the learned counsel to be without merit. The letter dated 08.08.2009 addressed by M/s.Sri Sreenivasa Gas Agencies was in response to the letter dated 07.08.2009 issued by the Enquiry Officer/the Chief Area Manager of the Corporation. Therein, the proprietor of the Agencies clarified that he did not know N.Vijaya Saradhi and that the said person had neither spoken to him nor threatened him at any time. He further stated that the appellant used to visit his office but had not worked with him in any capacity, either temporary or permanent. He also denied paying the appellant for services rendered. Juxtaposed with his earlier letter dated 13.02.2009, it is evident that the proprietor of the Agencies did not furnish any new information detrimental or adverse to the interest of the appellant. It appears that by way of abundant caution, the Enquiry Officer again sought confirmation of the stand of the Agencies. Further, as the appellant had alleged that the retraction by the Agencies was due to the coercion and threats of N.Vijaya Saradhi, the Enquiry Officer seems to have sought its response in that regard. 15. It is now well settled that it would not be sufficient for an injured party to merely establish violation of the principles of natural justice, it would also be incumbent upon such party to establish and prove the prejudice suffered owing to such violation. 15. It is now well settled that it would not be sufficient for an injured party to merely establish violation of the principles of natural justice, it would also be incumbent upon such party to establish and prove the prejudice suffered owing to such violation. On facts, we find that no prejudice whatsoever was caused to the appellant by the reliance placed by the Corporation on the subsequent communication dated 08.08.2009 received from the Agencies at Tirupati. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant therefore merits rejection. 16. The second argument of the learned counsel is with regard to the relevance of the experience certificate. It is his case that as the performance of the candidates at the interview was of primary value, the certificate faded into insignificance and the Corporation ought not to have attached such importance to it as to warrant the cancellation of his client’s candidature. 17. It is no doubt true that the guidelines posit that the award of marks, in so far as the experience parameter is concerned, would be based upon the quality of the experience of the candidate as judged from his responses to the questions posed to him during the interview. However, the application makes it clear that experience is to be categorized on the basis of whether the same related to direct sale/home delivered products (including LPG Distributorship) or other petroleum products or any other trade. Maximum marks to be awarded under each category are also spelt out in the guidelines and reflect that the maximum of 4 marks would be awarded only to those who had experience with regard to direct sale/home delivered products (including LPG Distributorship). The appellant claimed to fall within this category on the basis of the experience certificate issued by the Agencies at Tirupati. Had it not been for this certificate, he could not have aspired for the maximum 4 marks under this head and would not have secured 3.7 marks. It is therefore not open to the appellant to brush aside the experience certificate and claim that his performance at the interview absolves him of taking responsibility for the contents of this experience certificate. It is no doubt true that the issuance of this certificate was admitted but the proprietor of the Agencies denounced the veracity of its contents. It is therefore not open to the appellant to brush aside the experience certificate and claim that his performance at the interview absolves him of taking responsibility for the contents of this experience certificate. It is no doubt true that the issuance of this certificate was admitted but the proprietor of the Agencies denounced the veracity of its contents. It was therefore for the appellant to prove before the Enquiry Officer that he had, in fact, worked for the Agencies. His attempt in this regard having failed, what ultimately remained was the declaration of the Agencies that the appellant had not been employed by it in any capacity. 18. It would not be open to the appellant at this stage to seek to reopen the matter by relying upon the subsequent communication dated 08.08.2009 of the Agencies, wherein its proprietor stated that the appellant used to visit the office. Ample opportunity having been provided to him, it was for the appellant to prove his case and having failed to do so, he cannot be permitted to initiate a roving enquiry at this stage by taking a cue from this so-called admission of the proprietor of the Agencies. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that his client should be permitted to cross-examine the proprietor on this aspect and elicit further information therefore cannot be countenanced. 19. That wrong information was furnished by the appellant to the Corporation is thus established beyond doubt. Concealment of relevant information and furnishing false information would necessarily entail adverse consequences to the person guilty thereof. 20. In KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN V/s. RAM RATAN YADAV (2003) 3 SCC 437 , the Supreme Court held that suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuation in service. On facts, the Court pointed out that the information required in the form was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge the candidate’s suitability to continue in service and therefore a candidate, having suppressed material information and/or giving false information, cannot claim the right to continue in service. 21. On facts, the Court pointed out that the information required in the form was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge the candidate’s suitability to continue in service and therefore a candidate, having suppressed material information and/or giving false information, cannot claim the right to continue in service. 21. Reiterating the above principle, the Supreme Court in ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V/s. KONETI VENKATESWARULU (2005) 7 SCC 177 held that a person who indulges in suppressio veriand suggestio falsi and obtains employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment. 22. On the above analysis, we hold that the appellant fell dismally short of fulfilling the obligation visited on him by clauses 16 and 17 of the application form. Having furnished wrong information to the Corporation, he cannot seek to derive the benefit thereof. The action of the Corporation in cancelling his candidature on this short ground and deleting his name from the select panel therefore does not warrant interference by this Court. 23. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. In consequence, WAMP Nos.30 and 68 of 2012 are also dismissed. No costs.