M.M. Kumar, CJ. 1. The instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters patent is directed against judgment and order dated 01.04.2013 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, setting aside the appointment of the appellants on Class IV posts in the office of Chief Education Officer, Kupwara. According to the view expressed by the learned Single Judge the appellants did not answer the basic qualification advertised for the post i.e. "minimum and maximum eligibility for the post is matric and 10+2". The appellants have suppressed and concealed their qualification of graduation and disclosed their qualification to be matric and 10+2 by filing affidavits. 2. Facts in brief are that the office of Chief Education Officer, Kupwara, issued an advertisement on 12.02.2011 (annexure A) inviting applications for Class IV vacancies in Kupwara district. The relevant extract from advertisement notice dated 12.02.2011 is set out below in extenso:- "Subject: Filling of Class IV vacancies in Kupwara District. Notice for filling up of Class IV vacancies in District Kupwara. Applications are invited on prescribed application forms as per annexure A from eligible candidates for filling of posts of Class IV vacancies in Education Department. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: (i) Minimum and Maximum eligibility for the post is Matric and 10+2. (ii) Applicant should not be below 18 years and above 37 years of age as on 01.01.2011. However upper age limit in respect of various categories as envisaged by law will be given. (iii) The appointee shall however in the matter of age, qualification, conduct and other matters be governed by recruitment rules and J&K Government orders in vogue for state civil services." 3. A perusal of the aforesaid advertisement notice shows that minimum eligibility for Class IV post fixed by the department was matric whereas the maximum qualification was fixed at 10+2. On the basis of the disclosure made in their applications the appellants were considered eligible because they suppressed the fact of being graduates. In support of their claim they filed false affidavits dated 10.10.2012. In his affidavit, appellant no. 1- Nissar Ahmad Dar has specifically stated that he had "passed 10+2 and did not have higher qualification like graduation/post graduation". Likewise appellant-Zahoor Ahmad Shah had filed a similar affidavit (annexure B). 4. In view of the aforesaid factual position respondent no. 4 and 5, who had 10+2 qualification filed SWP no. 2603/2012 and disclosed the aforesaid facts. 1- Nissar Ahmad Dar has specifically stated that he had "passed 10+2 and did not have higher qualification like graduation/post graduation". Likewise appellant-Zahoor Ahmad Shah had filed a similar affidavit (annexure B). 4. In view of the aforesaid factual position respondent no. 4 and 5, who had 10+2 qualification filed SWP no. 2603/2012 and disclosed the aforesaid facts. The official respondents 1 to 3 took categoric stand in para 7 and 8 of the objections asserting that appellants were selected under Physically Handicapped Category after having been interviewed along with writ petitioner-respondent nos. 4 and 5 because they were found eligible on the basis of their qualification supported by affidavits. It has further been stated that the appellants "have sworn in false affidavits and have deceived the official machinery of the official respondents in order to seek favour with the order of appointment by deceitful means". The official respondents denied that they deviated from the eligibility criteria and asserted that on account of the false affidavits they were completely misled. However, in view of the interim directions issued by the Writ Court on 21.12.2012 the appointment orders were not issued. 5. The appellants, in their objections have brushed aside the issue of filing false affidavits. They have asserted that in law no bar could be created omitting the Class IV post for Matriculate and 10+2. They have placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K. and ors v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 and argued that possession of a higher qualification since possesses the lower qualification as well the appellants cannot be debarred for selection on a lower post. 6. The learned Writ Court, after taking into account the aforesaid material, has concluded as under: "5. While considering the rival submissions and the record as available, that will emerge is that in the Advertisement Notice inviting applications for filling up Class IV vacancies in Kupwara District, the terms and conditions vis `a-viz qualification have been prescribed and it has been prescribed as under:- "Minimum and maximum eligibility for the post is matric and 10+2." 6. According to the requirement of the post, educational qualification has been prescribed. According to the requirement of the post, educational qualification has been prescribed. When respondent No. 4 and 5 were selected, they were asked to file an affidavit to the effect that they do not possess higher qualification, both the two have filed the affidavits stating therein that they have passed 10+2 and are not having higher qualification Viz. Graduation/ Post-graduation. The two affidavits are duly attested. It is an admitted position now that both the respondents No. 4 and 5 are Graduates, so as per above referred conditions were not eligible to apply. 7. The contention of learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 that the higher qualification is not a disqualification, pales into insignificance in view of the clear cut condition contained in the advertisement notice. Qualification has been prescribed as per the requirement of the post. Class IV employee is expected to do what a candidate with Graduation is not expected to do. So as per the requirement the respondents No. 4 and 5 were not eligible. Furthermore, they have exposed their deceptive position by concealing the position of possessing higher qualification and by filing two false affidavits to justify their eligibility by stating that they have not acquired any higher qualification. 8. For the stated reasons, the selection of respondent No. 4 and 5, being unsustainable because of being ineligible for the post, is quashed. The candidates next in merit, be it petitioners or anyone else, in Handicapped category shall be considered for selection in place of respondents No. 4 and 5. Respondent No. 3, Chief Education Officer, Kupwara, shall also be at liberty to launch prosecution as against the respondents No. 4 and 5 for deceiving him while obtaining selection, on the basis of two false affidavits." 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference from this Court. 8. The advertisement notice, in clear words, stipulated that minimum qualification for Class IV is Matric and the maximum eligibility qualification is 10+2. In other words those persons possessing qualification higher than the maximum were considered overqualified and were not eligible to apply. This factual aspect is crystal clear. The legal position is also well settled in this regard. 8. The advertisement notice, in clear words, stipulated that minimum qualification for Class IV is Matric and the maximum eligibility qualification is 10+2. In other words those persons possessing qualification higher than the maximum were considered overqualified and were not eligible to apply. This factual aspect is crystal clear. The legal position is also well settled in this regard. In the case of P.M. Latha and anr v. State of Kerala and ors, (2003) 3 SCC 541 a similar controversy arose with regard to the eligibility qualification for lower Primary/Upper Primary Teachers in Government School which was "Pass in TTC (Trained Teacher Certificate)". On the basis that B.Ed is higher qualification then TTC, the selection authority selected B.Ed qualified candidates. Rejecting the argument that B.Ed was higher qualification then TTC, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in para 10 as under:- "We find absolutely no force in the argument advanced by the respondents that B.Ed. qualification is a higher qualification than TTC and therefore, the B.Ed. candidates should be held to be eligible to compete for the post. On behalf of appellants, it is pointed out before us that Trained Teachers Certificate is given to teachers specially trained to teach small children in primary classes whereas for B.Ed. degree, the training imparted is to teach students of classes above primary. B.Ed. degree holders, therefore, cannot necessarily be held to be holding qualification suitable for appointment as teachers in primary schools. Whether for a particular post, the source of recruitment should be from the candidates with TTC qualification or B.Ed. qualification, is a matter of recruitment policy. We find sufficient logic and justification in the State prescribing qualification for post of primary teachers as only TTC and not B.Ed. Whether B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates, for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible." (Emphasis added) 9. A perusal of the aforesaid para makes the legal proposition crystal clear. Whether B.Ed. qualification can also be prescribed for primary teachers is a question to be considered by the authorities concerned but we cannot consider B.Ed. candidates, for the present vacancies advertised, as eligible." (Emphasis added) 9. A perusal of the aforesaid para makes the legal proposition crystal clear. The view taken in the aforesaid judgment has been followed and applied in the case of Yogesh Kumar and ors v. Government of NCT, Delhi and ors, (2003) 3 SCC 548 where again candidates with qualification of B.Ed were not considered eligible on account of the fact that the advertisement confined the eligibility to those persons only who had the qualification of Teacher's Training Certificate for the post of Assistant Teacher of Primary Schools of Municipal Corporation Delhi. The view has again been followed and applied in Dilip Kumar Ghosh and ors v. Chairman and ors, (2005) 7 SCC 567 , State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436 and State of Haryana and anr v. Abdul Gaffar Khan and anr, (2006) 11 SCC 153 . Further the respondents might have experienced that persons with graduation qualification are not inclined to perform duties of a Class IV employee and after sometime they tend to leave the job. In any case the basis for prescribing necessary qualification is left to the wisdom of employer. In the absence of any arbitrariness such a basis is acceptable to courts. 10. We are further of the view that the appellants are not entitled to hearing on merit for the simple reason that they not only misrepresented the facts but also filed false affidavits demonstrating highhandedness and they also misled the authorities. In their affidavits both of them, in categoric terms have stated that they have qualification of 10+2 and not that of graduation. Such an overreaching on the part of the appellants deserves to be condemned and they have lost every right of hearing before this Court because they cannot solicit equity if they themselves have not acted equitably. If there was any doubt in their mind with regard to their eligibility on account of possessing higher qualification, then they ought to have approached any other forum rather than resorting to concealment of facts in the application forms and then making active misrepresentation on sworn affidavits. If there was any doubt in their mind with regard to their eligibility on account of possessing higher qualification, then they ought to have approached any other forum rather than resorting to concealment of facts in the application forms and then making active misrepresentation on sworn affidavits. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. And ors (2008)12 SCC 481 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that if someone makes misrepresentation before the Writ Court then such a person is not entitled to any equitable relief or hearing on the merit of the controversy. Once such a rule is applicable to a writ petitioner, we see no reason to make it inapplicable to those who have indulged in acts of indiscretion by making active misrepresentation. The learned Single Judge has rightly granted liberty to the official respondents to proceed against the appellants. To our mind no exception is provided to take any other view then the one taken by the learned Single Judge. 11. As a sequel to the above discussion the appeal does not merit admission and is accordingly dismissed.