Judgment :- Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order of termination of the job of the petitioner who was once appointed as an Anganwadi Worker. Integrated Child Development Scheme of the State of West Bengal issued a notification dated July 5, 2006 inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker, etc. The qualification for the said post as mentioned in the said notification was Madhyamik or its equivalent examination. It was specifically laid down there in that a graduate or persons holding higher qualifications would not be eligible for the said post. The eligibility condition contained a further rider, i.e., if a candidate suppressed her qualification and was selected her candidature/ appointment would be cancelled forthwith the moment proof with regard to the same would be obtained without assigning any reason. The petitioner is a graduate. But she was eventually selected for the said post in September, 2007. On September 2, 2009 the respondent no. 5 herein issued a notice by which the petitioner was intimated that as she had completed graduation before she applied for the post her service has been terminated and she was directed to hand over the charge to the person mentioned therein. The petitioner did not challenge the decision at that point of time. In the year 2010 a Special Bench of this Court had delivered a judgement on the same point which, the petitioner claims, strikes down such orders and she is now claiming cancellation of the order of termination and reinstatement to her position on the basis of the said judgement. The delay in moving the writ petition has been explained by her expectation that once the High Court had settled the issue the benefit thereof would be extended to the petitioner even without litigating. The other contention of the petitioner was that her service was terminated without affording her any opportunity of being heard and as such it violated the principles of Natural Justice. The State respondents had contested this application by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. It was, inter alia, contended that the petitioner admittedly has the higher qualification than that was stipulated in the notification and the petitioner had joined the post after giving a false declaration that she did not complete graduation before submission of her application. The State respondents had contested this application by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. It was, inter alia, contended that the petitioner admittedly has the higher qualification than that was stipulated in the notification and the petitioner had joined the post after giving a false declaration that she did not complete graduation before submission of her application. The recruitment instruction for the post of an Anganwadi Worker clearly mentioned that graduates were ineligible for the post and suppression of academic qualification by a selected candidate would result in termination of her service from the said post forthwith without any further reference. Again in the appointment letter also it was specifically stipulated that any false declaration regarding residence, age, educational qualification, etc. would result in termination of the appointment and no further reference on such issue would be entertained. The respondents contended that in such view of the matter there was no scope for granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner held a higher qualification when she had submitted her application for the said post. The respondent no. 5 had received complaints about the petitioner’s concealing higher qualification and on enquiry it was found that the petitioner had graduated in the general stream way back in the year 1995. In support thereof the respondents had referred to a memo dated November 14, 2009 issued by the Principal of the Memari College, Burdwan. The Special Bench judgement which has been very strongly relied on by the petitioner has been distinguished by the respondents as not applicable to the facts of the present case. According to the respondents although the Scheme of 1985 under which the advertisement in the aforementioned case was delivered contained a stipulation that suppression of educational qualification would make the appointment liable for termination the advertisement which was in fact published omitted to mention the said clause of termination. According to the respondents the Special Bench had granted benefit to the petitioner in that case only because of the silence of the relevant condition in the advertisement. In the present case the advertisement very clearly included the clause of termination on suppression of facts relating to educational qualification making this case distinct from the case relied on by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit-inopposition relying on the principles laid down by the Special Bench of this Court. In the present case the advertisement very clearly included the clause of termination on suppression of facts relating to educational qualification making this case distinct from the case relied on by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed an affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavit-inopposition relying on the principles laid down by the Special Bench of this Court. According to the petitioner the concerned respondents had not framed any rule as per the judgement of this Court. She has taken a further point that non-disclosure of higher qualification in the application form does not mean false declaration. According to her the application did not contain any column where she could disclose her higher qualification and the termination of service because of such non-disclosure was bad in view of the judgement delivered by this Court. Before dealing with the points raised by the petitioner the factual aspects of the case are required to be put in their perspectives. The respondents have annexed the application of the petitioner to their affidavit as part of Annexure R-1 where she had declared her educational qualification as ‘Madhyamik’. She had filled up the column for educational qualification as ‘Madhyamik’. She had not only given a declaration to that effect but also that she was not giving any false information regarding her higher qualification. She even signed an undertaking which inter alia stipulated that if in her educational qualification any mistake was subsequently proved, her application was liable to be cancelled or her appoint would be terminated and that she would have no objection to that. In the appointment letter that was issued to the petitioner this clause was also very specifically mentioned that if her residential address or educational qualification had been proved false subsequently her appointment would be treated as terminated and no application to that effect thereafter would be entertained. It may further be mentioned that in the joining report she had very categorically declared that she had not obtained any graduation degree from any recognized university. She agreed to abide by all the conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment and gave a further declaration that if the information given by her is ever proved to be false she would be bound to accept the termination of her appointment. She agreed to abide by all the conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment and gave a further declaration that if the information given by her is ever proved to be false she would be bound to accept the termination of her appointment. Thus, there is hardly any scope for the petitioner to contend that she did not disclose her graduation degree for there no space for it in the application form. When one is required to declare the educational qualification one discloses the highest qualification one possesses. For example, one who has passed the Higher Secondary Examination never discloses ‘Madhyamik’ as the educational qualification. Highest qualification includes possession of a lower qualification; but not viceversa. A graduate form a university cannot feign ignorance of this common practice. That apart, the petitioner having declared that she did not possesses graduation degree had definitely given a false declaration. This she must have done to make herself eligible for the post. Her assertion that nondisclosure of higher qualification does not amount to false declaration is too feeble a defence to merit any consideration. In the case of Manoj Kumar –Vs.-Government of NCT of Delhi, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 702 the Supreme Court has held that a candidate furnishing false or incomplete information or withholding or concealing any material information in his application can be debarred from securing employment. Even if such a candidate is appointed his service will be liable to be terminated for furnishing false information. Applying the said principle it cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner’s service was rightly terminated by the respondents. The petitioner now wants to challenge the termination order based on the judgement of this Court in the case of Rina Dutta and others –Vs.-Anjali Mahato and others, reported in 2010(2) CLJ (Cal) 321. That was also a case on the candidates possessing higher qualification for the post of Anganwadi Workers. In that case the Scheme under which the advertisement was issued inviting applications for the Anganwadi Workers provided that the advertisement should state that should a candidate suppresses any relevant information or furnishes false information particularly regarding her age, residence and educational status, her appointment might be terminated at any time. However, this was not mentioned in the advertisement itself. What was mentioned was that the matriculates were eligible to apply and graduate women were not meant for that post. However, this was not mentioned in the advertisement itself. What was mentioned was that the matriculates were eligible to apply and graduate women were not meant for that post. The Special Bench of this Court held that this sentence in the advertisement could hardly be considered as a prohibition against graduate women from applying for the post nor could it be treated as a ground to disqualify or penalize a graduate woman for not having mentioned her graduate qualification in the application. It was in this context that the judgement decided that the advertisement did not specifically debarred or disqualified graduate women from applying for the post of Anganwadi Workers and as such engagement of the appellants could not be said to be illegal on the touch-stone of the advertisement. The Bench while reiterating the well settled principle that candidates possessing higher qualifications than that advertised cannot ordinarily be debarred or disqualified also laid down that it was open to the employer to make a rule providing for disqualification of candidates possessing higher qualification than the prescribed one. This Court further gave liberty that in future the employer might specify in the rule and in the advertisement that persons with higher qualifications would not be considered eligible. On this very major and vital factual aspects the case of Rina Dutta (Supra) is distinguishable from the facts of the present one. It has already been noted that in the present case the advertisement, appointment letter, admit card contained a stipulation to the effect that suppression and false declaration of educational qualification would make the application of a candidate or, if appointed, her service liable to be terminated forthwith. It has been found earlier that the petitioner had made false declaration of her educational qualification. In the case of Rina Dutta (Supra) the advertisement was silent on this point and the omission to mention any disqualifying clause was held to be the real cause for not debarring a candidate from applying for the concerned post. But in the present case the petitioner cannot take the advantage of the judgement of Rina Dutta (Supra) for a proposition that higher qualification is no disqualification. In the given set of facts the petitioner had definitely suppressed the higher qualification and has come up with a stale defence. As such the case of Rina Dutta (Supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. In the given set of facts the petitioner had definitely suppressed the higher qualification and has come up with a stale defence. As such the case of Rina Dutta (Supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. The only other point that the petitioner had raised is that her service was terminated without giving her an opportunity of being heard, i.e., Natural Justice has been violated. It was specifically mentioned in the relevant documents that upon proof of giving wrong information regarding place of residence, age, educational qualification etc. the candidature or the appointment, as the case may be, would be terminated forthwith without assigning any reason. Even if one wants to read the principles of Natural Justice into it, no purpose would now be served by directing the respondents to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is not a case where the petitioner questions the factual finding of the respondents about her higher qualification or asserts her previous declarations to be true and correct. Observance of the principles of Natural Justice will be indulging in empty formality. In the case of S. L. Kapoor –Vs.-Jagmohan and others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 136 , the Supreme Court clearly laid down that where the admitted facts lead but to one conclusion and under the law only penalty is permissible the Court may refuse to compel the observance of Natural Justice, not because it is not necessary to observe Natural Justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs. That apart, the petitioner has not been able to show that there has been any substantial injustice caused to her by not affording to her an opportunity of being heard. Lord Denning MR in the case of R. –Vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex P. Mughal, reported in (1973) 3 All E.R. 796, observed: “The rules of natural justice must not be stretched too far. Only too often the people who have done wrong seek to invoke ‘the rules of natural justice’ so as to avoid the consequences.” It was specifically alleged in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner obtained her graduation qualification as early as in the year 1995 and this has not been controverted in the reply which means the petitioner accepts the allegation. Only too often the people who have done wrong seek to invoke ‘the rules of natural justice’ so as to avoid the consequences.” It was specifically alleged in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner obtained her graduation qualification as early as in the year 1995 and this has not been controverted in the reply which means the petitioner accepts the allegation. Such being the position sending the matter back to the respondents will not serve any special purpose and would be an observance of an empty formality. There is no dispute about the petitioner’s possessing higher qualification and the respondents cannot be blamed if they invoke the consequential penal clause which the advertisement contained. The petitioner has no case, either in law or in equity. The petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, no order as to costs.