JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Heard Shri Mr. N.B. Rathod, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Shri N.S. Khubalkar, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 4, Shri Kiran Malokar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 and Shri C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. By their consent, Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal. Rule is therefore, issued and the same is made returnable forthwith. 2. Petitioner who was within prescribed age limit, participated in response to the advertisement dated 14.05.2013, for selection to the post of Health Assistant (Male). Shri Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent no.3 furnished incorrect marks while disclosing his scores and performance in S.S.C., H.S.C. and Graduate examination. Not only this, he also did not submit necessary declaration of small family. He has taken us through the relevant terms and conditions to show that false disclosure results in cancellation of candidature for appointment. He submits that though petitioner has made a complaint, its cognisance has not been taken. 3. Shri Malokar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 is relying upon the reply affidavit. He states that in selection process, respondent no.3 has secured more marks than petitioner. He also gave an affidavit that inadvertently he disclosed incorrect marks while submitting application. It is further pointed out that because of confusion, certificate of small family was not given by him, but, later on with proper application he submitted the appropriate certificate. He therefore, submits that this Court should not, at this stage intervene in the matter. 4. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 states that small family certificate was submitted by the respondent no.3, but, inadvertently it was not signed. He further states that the incorrect marks were disclosed in the application form due to mistake committed by the operator who filled in necessary data online. 5. Shri Khubalkar, learned A.G.P. has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 4. 6. Perusal of the advertisement shows a stipulation about documents to be produced by a candidate at the time of interview. He has to produce his employment exchange registration card and an affidavit of having small family. The said clause stipulates that even unmarried candidates have to give it by mentioning that said requirement is not applicable in their case. 6. Perusal of the advertisement shows a stipulation about documents to be produced by a candidate at the time of interview. He has to produce his employment exchange registration card and an affidavit of having small family. The said clause stipulates that even unmarried candidates have to give it by mentioning that said requirement is not applicable in their case. As per Clause 21, if during selection process or after appointment, information supplied is found to be false, or it is revealed that correct information was not given, the appointment can be cancelled. All candidates were to be provisionally allowed to participate on the strength of data submitted by then online. 7. Fact that respondent no.3 gave incorrect scores is, not in dispute. The said fact can be ascertained from following chart. Scores mentioned Actual Scores SSC 45.00% 40.71% HSC 49.00% 44.33% Degree 47.00% 39.61% 8. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 has invited our attention to declaration submitted by the respondent no.3 at the time of interview i.e. on 18.06.2013. We find that there in column which deals with educational and other qualifications, though there is no space for writing marks and no scope for disclosing the same, somebody has written marks as mentioned in chart (supra), i.e. scores declared incorrectly, as also correct scores. 9. The affidavit filed by respondent no.3 on 20.11.2013, i.e. almost 5 months after the said interview shows that he attributed incorrect scores to computer operator. He has then disclosed that as per documents available with him, he has secured 43% marks in SSC; 44.3% in H.S.C. and 39% at Graduation (B.A.). He has requested the authorities to evaluate his candidature accordingly in correct percentage and to select him for appointment. 10. The employer has not explained the situation in which correct and incorrect scores appear on the application to be submitted by the candidate at the time of interview. Respondent no.3 does not say that he himself gave that data, on the contrary affidavit filed by him on 20.11.2013, shows a request to correct his marks and to evaluate his performance accordingly. Thus, correct marks appear to have been disclosed by respondent no.3 for the first time through said affidavit. The affidavit is after complaint by the present petitioner, that respondent no.3 has not given correct scores and certificates. Thus, correct marks appear to have been disclosed by respondent no.3 for the first time through said affidavit. The affidavit is after complaint by the present petitioner, that respondent no.3 has not given correct scores and certificates. Respondent no.2 does not state that it noted the variance in scores at the time of interview. 11. Respondent no.3 gave an application on 15.10.2013 on the subject of submission of said certificate. He has mentioned that he was interviewed, after he cleared written test and he has also been selected thereafter. He has further mentioned that inadvertently he could not submit the small family certificate. Along with his application he has given that certificate which is also dated 15.10.2013. The said certificate shows that he has two children and none of them is born after 28.03.2005. He has not stated that certificate was already supplied with necessary details and inadvertently it was not signed. Thus, explanation being furnished by respondent no.3 before this Court is, clearly by way of an after thought. In view of this, we find substance in the contention of petitioner that respondent no.3 did not furnish necessary certificates at the time of interview and did not disclose correct marks. It is apparent that the respondent employer has not disclosed true and correct facts to this Court. It also does not submit that consciously, respondent no.3 was allowed to appear for interview and he was given time to submit that certificate. 12. In this situation, selection and appointment of respondent no.3 cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Respondent to consider candidature of next available candidate in the merit list/select list, within next six weeks and issue necessary appointment order to said candidate. 13. Writ Petition is, thus partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. 14. Shri Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 seeks stay of this judgment for a period of 8 weeks. Request is being opposed by Shri Rathod, learned counsel for the petitioner. However, in the interest of justice, the judgment is stayed for a period of eight weeks. This interim order shall cease to operate automatically thereafter.