JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The matter pertains to selection and appointment to the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Production) under the official respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner seeks quashment of the selection and appointments of the private respondents to the said posts pursuant to the selection that was conducted after obtaining the candidatures by placing requisition with the Employment Exchange vide letter dated 24th September, 2010. He has also prayed for a mandamus to the respondents to appoint him in the said post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Production). As stated in the writ petition, the petitioner is a Diploma holder in Chemical Engineering and also Bachelor in Engineering. He obtained the said two qualifications in the years 2004 and 2009, respectively. The respondents IOC Limited, Guwahati Refinery vide its Annexure-C requisition dated 24th September, 2010 placed with the District Employment Exchange, Rehabari, Guwahati, intimated, amongst others, about the vacancies of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Production). As laid down in the said letter of requisition, the required qualification/induction level qualification was B.Sc. (PCM) or Diploma in Chemical Engineering. 2. The petitioner having been registered with the Employment Exchange with his qualification as Diploma in Chemical Engineering was sent for the selection and having accepted his candidature, he was issued with the call letters for the written test followed by oral interview. In the call letters, amongst others, it was intimated that the candidature was provisional and subject to meeting the eligibility criteria. The petitioner was also directed to bring alongwith him the documents mentioned in the call letters, which included documents pertaining to his qualification, mark-sheets for all years/semesters alongwith the final Degree/Diploma certificates. The petitioner having qualified in the written test was invited for personal interview vide Annexure-E letter dated 2nd December, 2010. By the said letter, he was intimated that he had been shortlisted for further selection process requiring him to be present for interview on 8th December, 2010. Furnishing certain instructions alongwith the call letter, the petitioner was directed to bring photocopies of all the required certificates including his qualification, mark-sheets for all years/semesters alongwith the final Degree/Diploma certificates. 3. As stated in the writ petition, after appearing in the oral interview, it was the expectation of the petitioner that he having done well in the selection process, would be selected. 3. As stated in the writ petition, after appearing in the oral interview, it was the expectation of the petitioner that he having done well in the selection process, would be selected. However, he came to know from some reliable source that me vacant posts, for which the selection was conducted, had been filled up without publishing the select list and the appointment letters were sent to the selected candidates directly by the respondent authorities. According to the petitioner, such arbitrary action on the part of the respondents generated in his mind a reasonable apprehension that there was illegality in the matter of selection and appointment of the private respondents and accordingly, he took recourse to the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information relating to the recruitment procedure from the respondent authorities. 4. Pursuant to such information sought for by the petitioner, he was informed vide Annexure-F letter dated 23rd February, 2011 that he was disqualified in the selection process for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Production) due to the following reasons:-- "(a) Guwahati Refinery had decided and accordingly informed the Employment Exchange that the candidates with higher qualification i.e., BE/MBA shall not be considered for the said recruitment process, as per IOCL policy on recruitment. (b) Vide declaration made by the candidate dated 14.12.2010, the candidate had explicitly agreed to be disqualified for non disclosure of information. (c) As per details from Assam Engineering College the candidate has graduated in B.E. (Chemical) in the year 09-10." 5. By the said communication, the marks obtained by the petitioner in the written test and personal interview were also furnished as 73 and 14, respectively, totaling to 87. The petitioner has enclosed the chart showing the marks obtained by different candidates to show that he having secured total 87 marks was entitled to get selection and appointment as candidates securing 74 (lowest) and 81 (highest) had been selected for appointment 6. Referring to the purported recruitment Rules holding the field (Annexure-G Photocopy), the petitioner has contended that since as per the said Rules, B.Sc. (PCM)/Diploma in Chemical Engineering for the post is only the minimum qualification, the petitioner's possessing the higher qualification of BE in Chemical Engineering could not have led to his disqualification in the selection process. Referring to the purported recruitment Rules holding the field (Annexure-G Photocopy), the petitioner has contended that since as per the said Rules, B.Sc. (PCM)/Diploma in Chemical Engineering for the post is only the minimum qualification, the petitioner's possessing the higher qualification of BE in Chemical Engineering could not have led to his disqualification in the selection process. The petitioner has also referred to Annexure-H recruitment policy (extract only) for the post in question laying down the minimum qualification as B.Sc. (PCM)/Diploma in Chemical Engineering, so as to contend that he having possessed the minimum qualification, irrespective of his higher qualification of BE in Chemical Engineering, he was required to be selected for appointment instead of rendering him disqualified in the selection on the grounds aforementioned. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it has been contended that the petitioner having not disclosed the fact that he is BE Degree holder, there was suppression of material fact rendering him ineligible for selection. Referring to the Employment Exchange registration of the petitioner dated 3rd June, 2010, the respondents have contended that even in the said registration, the petitioner did not disclose his actual qualification of BE in Chemical Engineering, but only disclosed his Diploma in Chemical Engineering qualification. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, referring to the policy decision of the respondents/Management, it has been stated that the candidates who were over qualified were not to be considered for the selection. Referring to the particular requisition placed with the District Employment Exchange, it has been stated that the Employment Exchange had sent the names of only those candidates, who had requisite qualification. According to the respondents, the Employment Exchange has 2(two) segments, namely, (i) where the respondents had sent the requisition where only Diploma holders were enlisted and the other (ii) where more qualified candidates having BE, B. Tech., MBA etc. were enlisted. 8. As stated in the said affidavit, the Directorate of Employment & Craftsmen Training vide their letter dated 25th October, 2010 had forwarded a list of candidates, which included certain candidates possessing BE, B. Tech. and MBA Degrees. Accordingly, by letter dated 11th November, 2010, the respondents had intimated the said Directorate that candidates who had acquired professional Degrees like BE, B. Tech., MBA etc. would not be considered for the ensuing requirement process. and MBA Degrees. Accordingly, by letter dated 11th November, 2010, the respondents had intimated the said Directorate that candidates who had acquired professional Degrees like BE, B. Tech., MBA etc. would not be considered for the ensuing requirement process. Referring to the call letters issued to the petitioner, the respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that the same was because of non disclosure of the petitioner about his actual qualification, which is BE in Chemical Engineering. 9. The respondents have stated in their affidavit that when it was revealed that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the fact that he is Bachelor in Engineering, knowing fully well that an over qualified candidate was not eligible, he rendered himself disqualified in the selection. Referring to the particular policy decision not to go for candidates with higher qualification, the respondents have stated thus:-- "(10) That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition the answering respondents state that candidates having higher qualifications are not considered as a matter of policy. In the advertisement/requisition the induction level qualification for the post in question i.e. Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Production) was (a) B. Sc. (PCM) or (b) Diploma in Chemical Engineering. Now, in the said recruitment process, where the induction level qualification is Diploma in Chemical Engineering or a simple Science graduate, if a candidate having B.E. or B. Tech or an M. Sc. Competes, he is bound to fare better in the selection process and the candidates having only Diploma or B. Sc. would have no chance to compete against a candidate having higher qualification. Further, the induction level qualifications are determined by the management keeping in view the need of the organization. Moreover, a B.E. or B. Tech. even after getting the job would look for better job opportunities as the present job is of the rank of Grade IV and is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and if they get a better job, they leave the services of the respondent corporation. In such an event the interest of the respondent corporation would suffer. Therefore, keeping all this in mind, the management as a matter of policy does not consider candidates having higher educational qualification than the induction level qualification as prescribed in the advertisement/requisition. Therefore, the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the recruitment process. In such an event the interest of the respondent corporation would suffer. Therefore, keeping all this in mind, the management as a matter of policy does not consider candidates having higher educational qualification than the induction level qualification as prescribed in the advertisement/requisition. Therefore, the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the recruitment process. As regards the statement that the petitioner was under the bona fide belief that his maximum qualification need not be stated as there was no criteria about the maximum qualification is incorrect and denied by the answering respondents. It is stated that the petitioner had deliberately not given his higher qualification because he was well aware of the aforesaid policy and practice of the answering respondents of not considering a candidate with higher qualification. Further, in the declaration form duly signed by the petitioner it was categorically provided that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information would render the candidate unfit. Moreover, as would appear from the said declaration that the petitioner on earlier occasions also had appeared in a recruitment process initiated by the IOCL and was therefore well aware of the aforesaid policy of IOCL. The petitioner had also duly signed the declaration that suppression of any fact or information would disqualify his candidature for the post." 10. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit, the respondents have stated that the ground for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner was not only on the basis of the higher qualification of the petitioner but also due to suppression of the said fact by him. Thus, in a nutshell what the respondents have contended in their counter affidavit is that the petitioner being guilty of suppression of material fact and also not being eligible in terms of fee required qualification laid down in the requisition and insistence of fee respondents for candidates only with Diploma in Chemical Engineering, the petitioner became ineligible and accordingly, his candidature had to be rejected, although he had appeared in the selection. 11. The respondent No. 5 has also filed a counter affidavit justifying his appointment. Along wife the affidavit, he has also enclosed the copy of the appointment order dated 23rd December, 2010. In the affidavit, he has justified his selection and rejection of the candidature of the petitioner. 12. 11. The respondent No. 5 has also filed a counter affidavit justifying his appointment. Along wife the affidavit, he has also enclosed the copy of the appointment order dated 23rd December, 2010. In the affidavit, he has justified his selection and rejection of the candidature of the petitioner. 12. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavits to both the affidavits filed by the official respondents and the respondent No. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has contended feat it was immaterial as to whether he had disclosed his BE qualification. According to him, he having fulfilled fee requisite criteria, irrespective of disclosure of his higher qualification, the respondents were obliged to select him. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has also been contended feat fee petitioner was well aware of the condition feat fee candidates having higher qualification were not entitled to be called for the selection inasmuch as he had appeared for fee same based on an earlier occasion also coupled with the fact that his brother is an employee under the respondents through whom he could gather all the informations about fee selection criteria and procedure. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner, however, has denied the aforesaid aspects of the matter. 13. I have heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned counsel for fee petitioner and have also heard Mr. N. Deka, learned standing counsel, Indian Oil Corporation. I have also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi and Mr. Ankur Deka, learned counsel representing fee respondent No. 5 and fee respondent No. 4, i.e. fee District Employment Exchange, respectively. 14. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for fee petitioner in his elaborate and detail argument submitted that it was immaterial as to whether the petitioner had disclosed his higher qualification or not, inasmuch as he had fulfilled the requisite eligibility criteria. According to him, the respondents having never indicated that higher qualification would render a candidate ineligible, the petitioner was well within his right to disclose only the required qualification. Referring to fee purported recruitment Rules and fee recruitment policy, he submitted feat Diploma in Chemical Engineering having been prescribed as the minimum qualification, petitioner's possessing higher qualification is immaterial. He has placed reliance on certain decisions to buttress the said argument, which are in Munna Roy v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2000) 9 SCC 283 ; in Mohd. He has placed reliance on certain decisions to buttress the said argument, which are in Munna Roy v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2000) 9 SCC 283 ; in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani & Ors. v. District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur & Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 606 ; in S. Nagaraj & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 595 and in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Abdul Gaffar Khan & Anr. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 153 . 15. Countering the above argument, Mr. N. Deka, learned standing counsel, IOC Limited, submitted that fee writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. According to him, it was within fee competence and jurisdiction of fee appointing authority to lay down fee particular qualification. He submitted that the employment notice by way of requisition having been placed to the Employment Exchange, there was no requirement of circulating to the candidates about non acceptance of the candidature with higher qualification. He submitted that the intimation vide letter dated 11th November, 2010 that was sent to the Directorate of Employment & Craftsmen Training that the candidates, who had completed and acquired professional degrees like, BE, B. Tech., MBA etc. would not be entertained for the recruitment process, was well ahead of the selection and thus there was no question of change of any conditions of employment notice after the selection process. 16. Emphasizing on the need for upholding the adopted policy of the respondents not to entertain candidates with higher qualification, Mr. Deka submitted that the petitioner being well aware of the said policy decision ought not to have taken recourse to falsehood. Mr. Deka has also placed reliance on certain decisions, which are in A.P. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateswarulu & Ors. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 177 ; in Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan & Anr. reported in (2006) 13 SCC 619; in Manoj Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in (2010) 11 SCC 702 and in Ch. Papanna v. The Personnel Manager, State Bank reported in 1995 (2) ALT 358. 17. Mr. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 177 ; in Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. v. A. Unnikrishnan & Anr. reported in (2006) 13 SCC 619; in Manoj Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in (2010) 11 SCC 702 and in Ch. Papanna v. The Personnel Manager, State Bank reported in 1995 (2) ALT 358. 17. Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 5 while submitting in the same line also questioned the maintainability of the writ petition in absence of any formal challenge to the appointment order dated 23rd December, 2010 issued in favour of the respondent No. 5. He submitted that the said respondent having fulfilled the requisite criteria was invited for the selection and he having cleared the same was appointed. He also submitted that by now the said respondent has completed almost 4(four) years of service and no interference is called for in respect of his selection and appointment 18. Mr. Ankur Deka, learned counsel representing the Employment Exchange submitted that their action in the matter was as per the requisition placed by the employer and could not have deviated from the terms and conditions of the requisition. 19. I have given my anxious consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also gone through the entire materials on record. My findings and conclusions on issue raised are as follows. 20. There is no dispute that as per the requisition placed with the Employment Exchange, the required qualification laid down was B.Sc. (PCM) or Diploma in Chemical Engineering. In the requisition that was placed vide Annexure-C letter dated 24th September, 2010, the induction level qualification was prescribed as such. The said letter was followed by letter dated 11th November, 2010 categorically stating that the candidates, who had completed and acquired professional Degrees like BE, B. Tech, MBA etc. would not be entertained for the recruitment process. Although it is the plea of the petitioner that such alteration of eligibility condition could not have been made after initiating the selection process, but as will be evident from the materials on record, the said letter dated 11th November, 2010 was in continuation of the requisition letter dated 24th September, 2010 and was issued in reference to the clarification sought for by the Employment Exchange vide its letter dated 25th October, 2010. This is evident from the said letter dated 11th November, 2010 (Annexure-II to the counter affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3). 21. The selection was also conducted much after the said letter dated 11th November, 2010. The petitioner having disclosed his qualification as Diploma in Chemical Engineering, he was invited for the written test held on 27th November, 2010. He having cleared the same, he was invited for the interview vide letter dated 2nd December, 2012(Annexure-E). It was only thereafter, it was revealed that the petitioner in fact is a BE (Chemical) Degree holder and accordingly, on the basis of the RTI application, he was informed of the reason for rejection of his candidature vide the Annexure-F letter dated 23rd February, 2011. The reasons indicated have been quoted above. 22. Throughout the writ petition, there is no reason assigned as to why the petitioner did not indicate his actual/higher qualification although as stated that he is both Diploma and Degree holders in Chemical Engineering. When he was called for the written test vide Annexure-D letter dated 12th November, 2010, he was specifically asked to produce the original and attested photocopies of the certificates/mark-sheets pertaining to his educational qualification including final Degree/Diploma certificates. Similarly in the subsequent call letter dated 2nd December, 2010 also there was specific mention for production of the aforesaid certificates. However, the petitioner did not do so. The learned counsel for the petitioner, as indicated above, submitted that the petitioner having conformed to the requirement of the minimum educational qualification, there was no requirement to state about the higher educational qualification. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that unlike the prescription of age limit indicating the minimum and maximum, there was no such indication in respect of the educational qualification. Thus, it was not incumbent on the part of the petitioner to disclose his higher educational qualification, more so when the same was not desired by the respondents. 23. Not only that when he registered himself with the Employment Exchange on 3rd June, 2010, the petitioner also withheld his actual qualification of BE in Chemical Engineering and instead indicated the same as Diploma in Chemical Engineering. 23. Not only that when he registered himself with the Employment Exchange on 3rd June, 2010, the petitioner also withheld his actual qualification of BE in Chemical Engineering and instead indicated the same as Diploma in Chemical Engineering. The fact of the matter is that by the time he had registered with the Employment Exchange on 3rd June, 2010, he was already BE in Chemical Engineering, which he obtained in 2009 as will be evident from the certificate enclosed to the writ petition, which is dated 23rd November, 2009. This aspect of the matter will have to be considered alongwith the plea of the respondents that he had earlier appeared in an earlier selection and that his brother is also an employee working under the respondents. 24. The respondents have enclosed in the counter affidavit the application form submitted by the petitioner in which there is a column for declaration with the stipulation that - (i) furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information will render the candidate unfit; and (ii) requiring attachment of attested photocopies of certificates/testimonials, mark-sheets etc. Under the head "Educational Qualifications", the petitioner declared the examinations passed as HSLC; HS and Diploma in Chemical Engineering in 2004, withholding his further qualification of BE in Chemical Engineering, which he obtained in the year 2009. In the said application form, he answered the particular query as "Yes". The query was as to whether he had appeared in the earlier written test/interview conducted by the IOC. The filled in application form was duly signed by the petitioner certifying that the particulars furnished therein are all correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. There is no explanation whatsoever as to why the petitioner was required to withhold his BE qualification. It is in this context, Mr. Deka, learned standing counsel, IOC Limited submitted that the said qualification was withheld by the petitioner being aware of the disqualification that he would earn in view of the insistence by the employer that candidates with higher qualification would not be invited for the selection. 25. In the purported recruitment Rules (Annexure-G) under Clause 2.7.0, there is provision for submission and checking of documents at the time of selection. As per the requirement of the said Clause, the candidates are required to fill up the particulars in the prescribed declaration form before interview. 25. In the purported recruitment Rules (Annexure-G) under Clause 2.7.0, there is provision for submission and checking of documents at the time of selection. As per the requirement of the said Clause, the candidates are required to fill up the particulars in the prescribed declaration form before interview. They are also required to submit applications alongwith the attested copies of the relevant certificates/testimonials. Clause 2.7.1(iii) provides for checking all educational certificates (starting from matriculation/higher secondary level) alongwith the mark-sheets for all years/semesters in original awarded or issued by the recognized Board/University/Instituted concerned. 26. From the above provisions, what has emerged is that the candidates were required to furnish all the details regarding their educational qualification, which were also required to be checked by the respondents. However, the petitioner withheld his higher qualification of BE. As noted above, there is also no whisper in the writ petition as to why he was required to do so. As disclosed in the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, as a matter of policy decision, it was decided not to entertain the candidates with higher qualification. It was so decided taking into account that a candidate with higher qualification was bound to fair better in the selection process and the candidates only with the requisite qualification might not be able to compete with such candidates with higher qualification. It has also been stated that the induction level qualifications are determined by the Management keeping in view the need of the Organization. It has further been stated that the candidates with higher qualification always look for better job opportunities, as the post involved in this proceeding is in the rank of Grade-IV and the incumbent is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 27. According to the respondents, the candidates with higher qualification after getting the job, leave the services of the respondents Corporation in search of better employment opportunities. Therefore, keeping in mind all the said aspects of the matters, the Management as a matter of policy, decided not to consider the candidates having higher educational qualification than the induction level qualification. 27. According to the respondents, the candidates with higher qualification after getting the job, leave the services of the respondents Corporation in search of better employment opportunities. Therefore, keeping in mind all the said aspects of the matters, the Management as a matter of policy, decided not to consider the candidates having higher educational qualification than the induction level qualification. This is a policy matter of the Management Unless the same is held arbitrary and/or said to be in violation of any statutory rules and even otherwise also a policy decision adopted by the employer cannot be interfered with exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is also no formal challenge to the same. 28. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the petitioner deliberately did not indicate his higher qualification as he was well aware of the aforesaid policy decision and practice of the respondents. As noted above, in the declaration form duly signed by the petitioner, while acknowledging the information furnished, he also acknowledged that any false information or suppression of any factual information would render his candidature unfit for consideration. 29. The decisions on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance do not render any support to his case. As has been held by the Apex Court in Ambika Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 1073 that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. 30. In S. Nagaraj (supra), the Apex Court observed that possessing minimum qualification prescribed under the Rules provides only eligibility. Referring to the lower qualification for the particular post, it was observed that a graduate can also apply. There is no quarrel with the said proposition. However, in the instant case, we are concerned with 2(two) aspects of the matter, firstly suppression of material fact and secondly, the policy decision of the authorities not to entertain candidates with higher qualification, for the reasons discussed above. 31. In the decision in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra), particularly in paragraphs 20 and 21, it was observed thus:-- "20. However, in the instant case, we are concerned with 2(two) aspects of the matter, firstly suppression of material fact and secondly, the policy decision of the authorities not to entertain candidates with higher qualification, for the reasons discussed above. 31. In the decision in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani (supra), particularly in paragraphs 20 and 21, it was observed thus:-- "20. If an employee does not perform the duties attached to the post disciplinary proceedings can certainly be taken against him. An employer cannot throw up his hands in despair and devise a method denying appointments to a person who otherwise meets the requisite qualifications on the ground that if appointed, he would not perform his duties. Qualification prescribed is minimum. Higher qualification cannot become a disadvantage to the candidate. 21. A criterion which has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be considered for the post on the principle that he is having higher qualification than prescribed cannot be rational. We have not been able to appreciate as to why those candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to SSC Examination could also not be considered. We are saying this on the facts of the case in hand and should not be understood as laying down a rule of universal application." 32. In the aforesaid case, unlike the present case, the challenge itself was to the decision of the authority not to entertain the candidates with higher qualification. The particular decision adopted by the Advisory Committee constituted under the Rules is quoted below:-- "(d) Applications of those candidates possessing minimum educational qualification of passing IVth vernacular standard and/or educated up to passing of VIIth Standard only should be considered for the interview to the post of Peons and those who have studied above VIIth vernacular standard may not take proper interest in the work of Peons and, mere- fore, should not be called for interview." 33. The Apex Court also found that a Peon, in respect of which the aforesaid restriction was laid down by the Advisory Committee,. was entitled to get further promotion requiring higher qualification. It was in that context, it was held that if the appointment of a candidate to the post of Peon is restricted to his having qualified upto Standard-VII, he will have no chance of promotion to the higher post of Regional (Language) Section Writer or Clerk. was entitled to get further promotion requiring higher qualification. It was in that context, it was held that if the appointment of a candidate to the post of Peon is restricted to his having qualified upto Standard-VII, he will have no chance of promotion to the higher post of Regional (Language) Section Writer or Clerk. It was held that in the given facts and circumstances and not as a rule of Universal application, there was no rational behind to restrict the selection only within the minimum qualification. Thus, the decision was rendered in the fact situation of that case. 34. In the instant case, apart from there being no challenge to the policy of recruitment of the respondents, it is also not a case of insistence by the petitioner that irrespective of his higher qualification, he having possessed the minimum qualification, his case is required to be considered at par with those possessing the minimum qualification inasmuch as at the first instance, he did not disclose his higher qualification, so as to stake claim on that basis and secondly, in that eventuality other similarly situated, who did not apply because of the embargo or whose candidatures were not sent by the Employment Exchange, would be deprived of such consideration. 35. In Munna Roy (supra), the Apex Court was concerned with cancellation of selection on the ground of possessing higher qualification than the required qualification. It was held that the advertisement itself having prescribed the higher qualification, the authority could not have come to a conclusion that the selection was made by adopting a dubious method. Same is not the case in hand. At the first instance, the petitioner withheld his higher qualification and secondly, the respondents insisted for the particular qualification for the post in question, for the reasons discussed above. 36. In Abdul Gaffar Khan (supra), the Apex Court was concerned with Haryana Ayurvedic/Homoeopathic and Unani Technical Group (C) Service Rules, 1997, which did not expressly exclude the Degree in Unani Medicine and Surgery for the post of Unani Dispenser. In the said case, the contesting respondents had possessed the required qualifications from a recognized University/Institution or Board and accordingly, it was held that they were eligible for appointment to the post of Unani Dispenser. In the said case, the contesting respondents had possessed the required qualifications from a recognized University/Institution or Board and accordingly, it was held that they were eligible for appointment to the post of Unani Dispenser. Upon a close scrutiny of the advertisement that was issued, it was found that the same did not anywhere stipulate that the Diploma was the required qualification. That was not a case of withholding of the actual qualification possessed by the respondents and insistence of a particular qualification for the post In the advertisement, it was not stipulated that Diploma was the required qualification. It was in that context, it was held that the respondents had the required qualifications possessing the Degree in the particular discipline. 37. In A.P. Public Service Commission (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the suppression of material information in the matter of appointment and cancellation of appointment held that it was not for the respondent candidate to decide, which information was relevant and required to be furnished and which one need not be furnished. In the said case, it was the plea of the respondent candidate that he had inadvertently filled up and signed the particular declaration. According to him, the information required to be furnished was also not relevant. Rebutting the said plea, the Apex Court held thus:-- "7. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent. As to the purpose for which the information is called for, the employer is the ultimate judge. It is not open to the candidate to sit in judgment about the relevance of the information called for and decide to supply it or not. There is no doubt that the application called for full employment particulars vide column 11. Similarly, Annexure III contained an express declaration of not working in any public or private employment. We are also unable to accept the contention that it was inadvertence which led the first respondent to leave the particulars in column 11 blank and make the declaration of non-employment in Annexure III to the application. The application was filled on 24.7.1999, the examination was held on 24.10.1999, and the interview call was given on 31.1.2000. We are also unable to accept the contention that it was inadvertence which led the first respondent to leave the particulars in column 11 blank and make the declaration of non-employment in Annexure III to the application. The application was filled on 24.7.1999, the examination was held on 24.10.1999, and the interview call was given on 31.1.2000. At no point of time did the first respondent inform the appellant Commission that there was a bona fide mistake by him in filling up the application form, or that there was inadvertence on his part in doing so. It is only when the appellant Commission discovered by itself that there was suppression veri and suggestion falsi on the part of the first respondent in the application that the respondent came forward with an excuse that it was due to inadvertence. That there has been suppression veri and suggestion falsi is incontrovertible. The explanation that it was irrelevant or emanated from inadvertence, is unacceptable. In our view, the appellant was justified in relying upon the ratio of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and contending that a person who indulges in such suppression veri and suggestion falsi and obtains employment by false pretence does not deserve any public employment. We completely endorse this view." 38. In Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the scope and ambit of judicial review held that the reliefs granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the frame work of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the Courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. In the said case, the respondent workman had obtained employment on the basis of suppression of truth and false representation as to his qualifications for the post in question. Though the High Court found that the respondent workman had incurred the disqualification in question but it ordered for reinstatement of the respondent on the ground that the same would not cause any hardship or prejudice to the appellant/employer. Allowing the appeal, the Apex Court held that the sympathy shown was misplaced and upheld the dismissal of the respondent. 39. In Manoj Kumar (supra), the Apex Court held that wrong furnishing of particulars in application for appointment could be a ground for termination of service. Allowing the appeal, the Apex Court held that the sympathy shown was misplaced and upheld the dismissal of the respondent. 39. In Manoj Kumar (supra), the Apex Court held that wrong furnishing of particulars in application for appointment could be a ground for termination of service. It was held that wrong statement of facts in the application form debars a candidate from getting appointment In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Apex Court held thus:-- "8. There is no doubt that if any candidate furnishes false or incomplete information or withholds or conceals any material information in his application, he will be debarred from securing employment. It is also true that even if such an applicant is already appointed, his services are liable to be terminated for furnishing false information." 40. In Ch. Papanna (Supra), the Andhra High Court referring to the decision in Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. (supra) held that it is for the employer to prescribe qualifications and that over qualification is certainly a disqualification. It was held that prescription by the Management that acquisition of higher qualification is a bar for recruitment cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 41. With the above discussions of the facts involved, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the decisions relied upon, 2(two) issues have emerged for determination, which are - (i) whether there was suppression of material fact on the part of the petitioner, disentitling him to get his case considered for appointment; and (ii) whether irrespective of non disclosure of the higher educational qualification, the petitioner having fulfilled the basic qualification, his case ought to have been considered on its own merit As noted above, not only the petitioner did not indicate his higher qualification while getting his name registered with the Employment Exchange in 2010 but he also did not disclose the said higher qualification in the documents submitted to the respondents during selection process. 42. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Employment Exchange registration was prior in point of time and the same was only renewed in 2010, there was no occasion for the petitioner to disclose his higher qualification. 42. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Employment Exchange registration was prior in point of time and the same was only renewed in 2010, there was no occasion for the petitioner to disclose his higher qualification. This argument is not acceptable inasmuch as even if the petitioner had renewed his employment exchange registration in 2010, but he having obtained the higher qualification in 2009, which is prior to such renewal, it was incumbent on his part to disclose his actual qualification. Similarly in the declaration form etc., the petitioner did not disclose his higher qualification but had shown his qualification as Diploma in Chemical Engineering unmindful of the specific stipulation that suppression of fact and/or any incorrect declaration might lead to cancellation of candidature. Not only that, even in the call letters issued to him, he was directed to produce all relevant certificates/mark-sheets of Degree/Diploma qualifications. He being a Degree holder in Chemical Engineering ought to have disclosed the said fact. 43. The above aspect of the matter will have to be considered in the context of the fact that the petitioner had earlier appeared in a similar selection and that his brother is an employee under the respondents. So the apprehension expressed by the respondents that the petitioner was well aware that disclosure of his actual qualification, might attract disqualification and accordingly he had withheld the qualification, cannot be said to be unfounded, rather finds support from the attending facts and circumstances. This being the position, the respondents were within their competence and jurisdiction to render the petitioner disqualified in the selection. 44. This now leads us to the second question as to whether irrespective of non disclosure of the higher qualification had rendered the petitioner disqualified for the selection. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated the reasons for not entertainment of the candidates with higher qualification. It was as a policy decision, the respondents decided not to entertain the candidates with higher qualification. The reasons therefor, have been discussed above. Coupled with this as has been contended by the respondents the candidates with higher qualification normally excel in the selection than the candidates with the entry level qualification. Thus, there is possibility of inequality in the matter of chances of selection. The reasons therefor, have been discussed above. Coupled with this as has been contended by the respondents the candidates with higher qualification normally excel in the selection than the candidates with the entry level qualification. Thus, there is possibility of inequality in the matter of chances of selection. There is another aspect of the matter, which is, if the candidature of the petitioner, irrespective of the aforesaid facts were to be entertained, the candidatures of such other similarly situated candidates were also required to be considered. When it is the admitted feet that no other candidates having higher qualification had been entertained by the respondents as per their policy decision, it will be a case of showing misplaced sympathy to the petitioner in the event of issuance of any direction to entertain the candidature and selection of the petitioner. 45. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner had produced the copy of the notification of vacancy dated 6th September, 2012 addressed to the District Employment Exchange. In the said requisition, for the post of Junior Engineering Assistant-IV (Production), while laying down the prescribed qualification as B.Sc. (Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics or Diploma in Chemical Engineering), it was specifically provided that graduate Engineers/MBAs were not to be considered for this post. This document was produced so as to submit that such a Clause having not been incorporated in the earlier requisition and the same having been made explicit in the said subsequent requisition dated 6th September, 2012, the same was applicable only in respect of future selection and not in respect of the impugned selection. Suffice is to say that in the earlier requisition also, the respondents by their letter dated 11th November, 2010 categorically informed the Employment Exchange that candidates with professional Degrees like, BE, B. Tech., MBA etc. were not to be entertained. As noted above, the letter was issued in reference to the clarification sought for by the Employment Exchange vide their letter dated 25th October, 2010. Thus, there was no change of the situation. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. Petition dismissed