ORDER : G. Narendra, J. 1. The above writ petition is preferred impugning the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore dated 17.7.2013 rendered in O.A. No. 530/2011. The first respondent herein had preferred the application impugning the order terminating her services with the petitioners by order dated 20.10.2011. 2. The petitioners had issued an advertisement dated 24.12.2007 calling for applications for the post of Staff Nurse in the hospital run by the petitioners, viz. ESI Corporation Model Hospital at Rajajinagar. In response to the advertisement the first respondent herein had submitted her application enclosing all necessary documents as stipulated in the advertisement and as per the instruction to candidates contained in the application form. The application was submitted on 22.2.2008. Along with the application the first respondent enclosed certain certificates including the certificate issued by the Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Karnataka certifying that the first respondent has completed the prescribed diploma course in General Nursing and Midwifery and another certificate issued by the Karnataka State Nursing Council endorsing the fact that the first respondent is registered as a life member of the council. 3. The first respondent has also enclosed the statement of marks, CC certificate, date of birth certificate, caste certificate certifying that she belongs to the category III B group, domicile certificate, provisional certificate and a character certificate. The caste certificate is issued in Form-F by the Competent Authority, the Tahsildar of the Taluk. The caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority describes the name, caste of the applicant and grouping under which the caste is categorized by the State. That apart the first respondent while submitting her application at Col. No. 8 has clearly sated that she belongs to III B category. Thus it is apparent that the first respondent has, while submitting her application, clearly stated that she belongs to Lingayath caste which is categorized as III B group. It is also pertinent to state that the caste certificate which is issued in Form-F under Rule 3A(2)(3) certifies a note that Smt. T. Gowramma, first respondent herein is a resident of Chitradurga and neither her mother/father/guardian/husband do not come under the creamy layer as per G.O. No. SWD. 225 BCA 2000 dt. 30.3.2002. It is also pertinent to state that the caste certificate which is issued in Form-F under Rule 3A(2)(3) certifies a note that Smt. T. Gowramma, first respondent herein is a resident of Chitradurga and neither her mother/father/guardian/husband do not come under the creamy layer as per G.O. No. SWD. 225 BCA 2000 dt. 30.3.2002. It also certifies that none of the above said persons hold or have served in B group post of the Government order in any equivalent post in any public sector undertaking. It also certifies that they are not in employment in any private, public sector earning salary equivalent to Group B. It also certifies that annual total income of the above said persons is not more than Rs. 2,00,000/- and thereafter the competent authority has certified that Kumari T. Gowramma, the first respondent herein, belongs to Lingayath caste coming under category III B Group as per G.O. stated supra. The certificate is dated 16.2.2008. 4. On receipt of the application the petitioners-authorities have scrutinized the same and having found nothing amiss and having found the application to be in order, issued an admit card to enable the first respondent to take up the written examination held on 31.8.2008. A reading of the admit card does not any where state that the first respondent is being permitted to take the exam under reserved category. The first respondent has meritoriously completed the exam. Thereupon the petitioners have published the list of candidates who have successfully passed the exams and has invited the eligible candidates for the interview to be held on 15.12.2008. The said list of eligible candidates has been issued on 24.11.2008. The said list also no way reveals under which category or group of reservation are the candidates invited for interview. The notification dated 24.11.2008 promulgating the names of the eligible candidates states that an interview letter would be dispatched to the candidates under certificate of posting. Thereafter a letter dated 24.11.2008 inviting the first respondent for the interview has also been dispatched. The notification dated 24.11.2008 promulgating the names of the eligible candidates states that an interview letter would be dispatched to the candidates under certificate of posting. Thereafter a letter dated 24.11.2008 inviting the first respondent for the interview has also been dispatched. It is relevant to note, the contents of the interview letter which merely states that with reference to her application for the post of staff nurses and based on the result of her written examination, interview is scheduled on 13.20 hours on 18.12.2008 and that the first respondent is required to attend the interview on the above date along with all original certificates, marks sheet pertaining to her qualification, matriculation certificate and date of birth certificate, experience certificate and caste certificate wherever applicable. Even the said letter does not reveal that the first respondent has been selected in the reserved category. 5. Thereafter on 5.1.2009 the petitioners issued a memorandum or offer of appointment to the post of Staff Nurse in the hospital run by the petitioners at Bangalore. Some of the conditions stipulated in the offer letter particularly condition 2 (iv) states as follows:- iv. The appointment will be provisional and will be subject to the verification of character and antecedents and also the verification of Caste/Tribe certificate through proper channel. If the verification reveals that his/her claim to belong to SC or ST or OBC, as the case may be, is false, his/her services will be terminated forthwith, without assigning any further reasons and without prejudice to further action as may be taken under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for having produced false Certificate. In sum and substance, the condition stipulates and puts the candidate on notice that if her caste certificate is found to be false then his or her services will be terminated forthwith without assigning any reason. Even the offer letter does not anywhere states that her appointment is against any reserved post or that she has been appointed as she belongs to any particular group or category of castes. 6. Even the offer letter does not anywhere states that her appointment is against any reserved post or that she has been appointed as she belongs to any particular group or category of castes. 6. It is also relevant to state that prior to taking up this employment, the first respondent was rendering service on permanent basis with Basaveshwara Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chitradurga and she has produced the office order dated 1.12.2007 which evidences the fact that her services have been regularized as a staff nurse on a certain pay scale and on being appointed by the first petitioner in which hospital she has tendered her resignation to her earlier employer named supra and her previous employer had accepted her resignation and relieved her of duties. 7. It is seen from the perusal of the records produced by the petitioners that after the passage of nearly two years and four months and after the first respondent has settled in the job, the Additional Commissioner of the petitioners/institution has caused a letter to the first respondent. For the first time, under the letter dated 20.4.2011 the Additional Commissioner has raised the contentious issues of appointment against quota. It is interesting to note at this juncture that the letter is issued after the passage of more than two years. The relevancy of the period of two years is to be seen in the context of the condition No. 2(iii) of the offer of appointment letter dated 5.1.2009 which reads as follows:- "iii. He/She will be on probation for a period of two years which may be extended at the discretion of the competent authority. His/her service under the Corporation will be liable to be terminated during the period of probation (or during the temporary tenure of appointment) on one month's notice in writing on either side or, his/her service may be terminated forthwith by payment to him/her a sum equivalent to the amount of his/her pay and allowances for the period for which such notice fall short of one month." 8. The cursory reading of the condition would show that the offer of appointment is liable to be regularized on completion of two years or conversely stating the employee would be vested with the right to have his services regularized on completion of the probationary period of two years. The cursory reading of the condition would show that the offer of appointment is liable to be regularized on completion of two years or conversely stating the employee would be vested with the right to have his services regularized on completion of the probationary period of two years. The offer letter further stated that the probationary period may be extended at the discretion of the Competent Authority, but it is not the case of the petitioners that the probationary period of the first respondent has been extended. Hence it can be safely presumed that a right has been vested in the first respondent to seek regularization of her services with the petitioners' institution. Thus for the first time the petitioners' institution has raised the bogey of appointment under a quota. 9. Thereafter the Medical Superintendent of the hospital caused a notice intimating the first respondent that the caste certificate shows lingayath which does not fall under the central list of OBC issued vide Government of India, Ministry of Social Welfare, Resolution No. 12011/68/93 - BCC (C) dated 10.8.1993 published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-I, No. 186 dated 13.9.1993. A notable feature of this notice is, for the first time the petitioners have revealed that persons seeking appointment in the quota for exemption of backward classes ought to belong to the list of OBCs notified under the Central list stated supra. It is relevant to note this aspect has never been put to the public in general and to the first respondent in particular either in the advertisement calling for applications or the admission card enabling the candidates to take the examination or in the interview call letter. Apart from the above it is pertinent to note that even the appointment/offer letter nowhere stipulates that the first respondent has to obtain a caste certificate as per the Government of India notification stated supra. The first respondent got issued a reply to the notice and in the reply she has stated that as against the advertisement dtd. 24.12.2007 calling for applications for recruitment to various posts in ESIC, she had applied for the post of 'Staff Nurse' by filling in application dtd. 22.02.2008 as per the instructions and enclosed all the relevant documents to her application and she did not claim to belong to the Other Backward Castes as declared by the Government of India. 24.12.2007 calling for applications for recruitment to various posts in ESIC, she had applied for the post of 'Staff Nurse' by filling in application dtd. 22.02.2008 as per the instructions and enclosed all the relevant documents to her application and she did not claim to belong to the Other Backward Castes as declared by the Government of India. Further, she has stated that as she was asked to produce the caste certificate she has produced the certificate about her caste. After the written examination, she was called for an interview and was asked to produce all the original documents. Accordingly, she attended the interview and produced the original documents and the same were verified. Subsequent to the same, she was appointed as Staff Nurse in January 2009. Even at the time of the joining all her documents were thoroughly verified. It is further stated that prior to the said appointment, she was working as a Nurse in S.J.M. Vidyapeetha, Basaveshwara Medical College Hospital & Research Centre, Chitradurga. She had been working in the said institution for more than two years and she had been regularized in the said institution. She has further stated that she has neither suppressed any material fact nor did she give any false information, with regard to her caste. She has complied with the instructions in the said advertisement and according to the same she has applied for the Staff Nurse post. She has submitted all the documents (photocopies with the application) and originals during the interview and during joining time, for verification. She has further stated that at the time of appointment (after due verification of all the original documents) she was not told that she has been considered under the OBC category. She had never claimed to belong to Other Backward Castes as declared by the Government of India. Hence, after resigning from her said earlier job, she joined the ESIC as Staff Nurse. She has further stated that she very humbly requests to kindly drop the proposal to terminate her from the services and also humbly requests to kindly confirm her probation, as she has completed the requisite period and as she has been an honest and hardworking Nurse, without any blemish on her service. 10. She has further stated that she very humbly requests to kindly drop the proposal to terminate her from the services and also humbly requests to kindly confirm her probation, as she has completed the requisite period and as she has been an honest and hardworking Nurse, without any blemish on her service. 10. The first respondent has clearly asserted that at the time of appointment she was never intimated that she was being considered for appointment under the quota reserved for OBC and further requested that her services may be regularized as she has completed the probationary period of two years. In response to the same the Medical Superintendent got issued the memorandum dated 20.10.2011 under which the services of the first respondent came to be terminated. Reading of the memorandum reveals that the Medical Superintendent apart from merely narrating the stand of the first respondent has not applied his mind to the legality of the contentions and has proceeded to mechanically pass an order with the terse comment that the explanation offered by the first respondent is not satisfactory and proceeded to terminate the services of the third respondent. 11. Perusal of the advertisement inviting applications would show that total number of vacancies notified for the post of staff nurse is 116 and out of the same 60 vacancies are notified for candidates belonging to the unreserved or general category. The advertisement does not specify any cut off marks for the general category or backward classes or other category and the education and other typical qualification for the post of staff nurse are:- (a) matriculation, registered nurse and midwife or equivalent for the male nurse and (b) age not exceeding 37 years. 12. Thus the basic qualifications as notified under the advertisement and a perusal of the documents produced by the first respondent clearly demonstrate that she possesses the required qualifications both with regard to age and technical. Thus it is not a case of the candidate not possessing the basic criteria or qualification required for the post. At this juncture it is relevant to note that the petitioners have relied upon the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1990(4) SLR 237. The said case is one where the selected candidate did not possess the minimum prescribed qualification. It was a case where the candidate had not completed the minimum age. At this juncture it is relevant to note that the petitioners have relied upon the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1990(4) SLR 237. The said case is one where the selected candidate did not possess the minimum prescribed qualification. It was a case where the candidate had not completed the minimum age. Hence, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to declare that where the respondent does not possess the requisite qualification and is selected by mistake and where the mistake came to light immediately thereafter at the time of joining duties, the action of the appellant in not permitting the respondent therein to resume duties was upheld. 13. As noted earlier, in the present case on hand, it is not one of lacking in requisite qualifications. It is also necessary to add in the present case the defect or mistake is not sought to be rectified at the first instance but at a very belated stage and the same is impermissible as the petitioners have allowed the first respondent to irreversibly alter her position. It is not the complaint of the petitioners/employer that the first respondent has practiced any fraud. It is also not the stand of the petitioners that they have committed a mistake and the mistake is bona fide. It is also pertinent to note that not once but on three occasions the petitioners had the opportunity to verify the application of the candidates. In fact, at column D of the advertisement, giving instructions to the candidates, at Sl. No. 8 the candidates were put on notice that if the applications are received after the last date of receipt of applications or without required enclosures, the same are liable to be rejected and no reason for rejection will be communicated. Thus at the very initial stage itself the applications were subjected to scrutiny. After scrutiny, only the admit card or the hall ticket to take up the written exam has been issued. Thereafter the candidates who were successful in the written exams were notified under a list published on 24.11.2008. Thus at the very initial stage itself the applications were subjected to scrutiny. After scrutiny, only the admit card or the hall ticket to take up the written exam has been issued. Thereafter the candidates who were successful in the written exams were notified under a list published on 24.11.2008. The first respondent was intimated by letter dated 24.11.2008 and under the said letter (Annexure-7) she was notified to produce the original of all the documents including original certificates, marks sheets pertaining to qualification, matriculation certificate indicating date of birth, etc., experience and caste certificate with a set of xerox copies including the call letter in original. The date of interview was notified as 18.12.2008. Thus on the said date of 18.12.2008 it can be safely presumed that the petitioners had verified the certificates for the second time. Thereafter under memorandum dated 5.1.2009 the first respondent came to be appointed and Clause (iv) states that the appointment will be provisional and subject to verification of character and antecedents and also the verification of caste/tribe certificate through proper channel. It further reads that if the verification reveals that his/her claim as belonging to SC or ST or OBC, as the case may be, is false, then his or her service will be terminated forthwith without any further reason and action will be initiated under the provisions of the IPC for having produced false certificate. 14. As stated supra, it is not the case of the petitioners/employer that they have initiated any proceedings under the Indian Penal Code there by admitting that the first respondent has either falsely represented or forged or fabricated the certificate and we are to conclude that the certificate furnished by the first respondent is neither forged nor false or fabricated and is authentic. 15. That being the case, the onus completely rests on the petitioners to demonstrate as to how they are entitled to summarily remove the first respondent. Even the condition of appointment specifically states that the candidate is liable to be summarily removed without assigning any reason only if the certificate produced by him/or her is false. Hence, on this ground alone it can be safely concluded that the petitioners' action of termination is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence unsustainable. 16. The action of termination is not only arbitrary but is capricious. Hence, on this ground alone it can be safely concluded that the petitioners' action of termination is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence unsustainable. 16. The action of termination is not only arbitrary but is capricious. The authority has not even assigned any reasons nor passed a speaking order after considering the objections raised by the first respondent in her reply to the notice. 17. As stated earlier, as per the advertisement the public were notified for filling up a total of 116 vacancies. The petitioners' counsel would heavily rely on Annexure R1 dt. 5.1.2009 stating that the first respondent has been notified that her appointment is under the category reserved for other back ward communities. Perusal of the same demonstrates that it has not been forwarded or put to the first respondent. It is stated by the petitioners' counsel that the same has been notified on the website. No material in support of the same is placed before the court. Though 60 posts of staff nurse were notified under the UR or general category, the document at Ann. R1 would show that only 35 candidates have been selected under the general or UR category and there are further 25 vacancies which have not been filled up. No reason is assigned as to why the remaining 25 vacancies though notified have not been filled up. The alleged notice also does not state as to what is the cut off mark or on what basis the candidates are selected. Thus the petitioners have not clarified as to why the first respondent has not been considered under the general category in the light of the fact that further 25 vacancies were available on the date of her appointment. It is also not the case of the petitioners that the first respondent is not meritorious enough to be considered against the 25 vacancies that were available on the date of appointment. Further Annexure R2, the caste certificate, has to be obtained by a Revenue officer not below the rank of the Tahsildar. In the instant case income and caste certificates are issued by the Tahsildar. It is also the case of the first respondent that while submitting her acceptance of the offer of her appointment, she had tendered back the proforma by endorsing on it in writing that the same is not applicable to her. In the instant case income and caste certificates are issued by the Tahsildar. It is also the case of the first respondent that while submitting her acceptance of the offer of her appointment, she had tendered back the proforma by endorsing on it in writing that the same is not applicable to her. Thus, viewed from any angle the assertions by the petitioners cannot not be accepted at all and cannot be condoned. The petitioners have also suppressed the vital document being the proforma submitted by the first respondent endorsing that the same is not applicable to her as she does not belong to the other backward communities. The petitioners have also not stated that as to at which stage they came to know about the ineligibility of the first respondent and if so, who is the officer who has detected the lacunae or mistake. The petitioners also do not disclose as to who is the officer who is responsible for the mistake and if any action has been initiated against the said officer. That being the case, it is hard to believe that the action of the petitioners is bona fide. 18. It is once again reiterated that no mala fides can be attached to the first respondent who has approached the Tribunal with clean hands. Even assuming that the first respondent cannot be accommodated against the 25 vacancies available as on the date of appointment against the general category, this court is of the opinion that the present case being not one where the candidate does not possess the basic qualification and not a case where the mistake is induced by fraud, we are of the opinion that the petitioners' plea of mistake has to be rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected as one without merit. No order as to costs.