JUDGMENT & ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. N.J. Kataniar, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department, Government of Assam, Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for the Rangia College authorities and Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 5467/2014 setting aside the selection of the appellant for the post of Assistant Librarian in Rangia College, Rangia, further directing issuance of fresh advertisement for filling up the said post. 3. An advertisement dated 24.07.2012 was issued by the Principal of Rangia College, Rangia (college) inviting applications from intending candidates having minimum qualification of BA/B.Sc./B.Com for filling up a vacant post of Assistant Librarian in the said college which was earmarked as a vacancy for unreserved category. It was mentioned that preference would be given to candidates having Bachelor of Library Science Degree. 4. In response to the said advertisement, appellant submitted application for the said post in a Standard Form of Application (Assam Gazette Part-IX) on 26.07.2012. Respondent No. 1 also submitted application on 07.08.2012 but the application was typed out in a plain paper. 5. It appears that altogether 55 candidates had submitted applications for the said post. 6. In the selection held on 07.08.2014 appellant secured 40.8 marks and was marked as selected by the Selection Committee. Respondent No. 1 secured 31.3 marks. Selection made by the Selection Committee was accepted by the Governing Body of the College who thereafter, took a decision to forward the resolution alongwith the recommendation of the Selection Committee to the Director of Higher Education, Assam for approval to enable the Governing Body to make the appointment. 7. It was at this stage that respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing the related writ petition raising two grievances against the selection of the appellant. First grievance was that appellant was a serving employee in the Public Works Department but this fact was not disclosed by the appellant in his application form. Not only that, against column 10 of the Standard Application Form, in respect of present occupation, if any, petitioner mentioned "No". First grievance was that appellant was a serving employee in the Public Works Department but this fact was not disclosed by the appellant in his application form. Not only that, against column 10 of the Standard Application Form, in respect of present occupation, if any, petitioner mentioned "No". This was contended by respondent No. 1 to be a suppression of material fact. Second grievance of respondent No. 1 was that the Selection Committee unjustifiably awarded 5 marks to the appellant on account of teaching experience in a Government/deficit college, though appellant was not a teacher in any such Government/deficit college. Therefore, selection of the appellant was vitiated. 8. The writ petition was contested by the appellant. In his affidavit, more particularly in paragraph-8 thereof, appellant stated that he was working as a Section Assistant in the Public Works Department (PWD) since 21.12.2010 and has since obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the said department to apply for any other job. It was stated that the said NOC was submitted to the college authority. It was also stated that appellant had inadvertently written the word "No" against columns 10 and 11 in the Standard Application Form as the appellant had no intention to suppress the fact that he was working in the PWD. Appellant also stated that he had served for 2 years as a Librarian in St. Vivekananda English Academy, Maligaon and for 7 years in the Pragjyotish School as a Librarian-cum-teacher. 9. After hearing the matter, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 20.05.2016 in the manner as stated above. 10. Aggrieved, present writ appeal has been filed. 11. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there was no mandatory stipulation under the advertisement for an applicant to disclose regarding his previous employment. It was only because appellant had submitted his application in the Standard Form which contained columns 10 and 11, the inadvertent mistake took place. Had the appellant submitted his application like respondent No. 1 in a plain piece of paper, suppression of such fact would not have arisen. His further submission is that it is for the appointing authority to take a decision regarding suitability of the selected candidates vis-a-vis non-disclosure of any fact. Had the appellant submitted his application like respondent No. 1 in a plain piece of paper, suppression of such fact would not have arisen. His further submission is that it is for the appointing authority to take a decision regarding suitability of the selected candidates vis-a-vis non-disclosure of any fact. But before the appointing authority could take any decision, the writ petition was filed and learned Single Judge erroneously interfered with the selection of the appellant. In support of his submission, Mr. Choudhury has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jainendra v. State of U.P., (2012) 8 SCC 748 . 12. Mr. Khataniar, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department has no submission to make. Recommendation of the Selection Committee along with the resolution of the Governing Body of the college were yet to be received by the Director of Higher Education before the intervention was made by the writ court. 13. Mr. D. K. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for the College, submits that the Governing Body of the college had accepted the recommendation of the Selection Committee and had adopted resolution to forward such recommendation to the Director of Higher Education, Assam for his approval. 14. On the other hand, Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 strenuously argued that in a matter of public appointment an applicant must disclose all necessary particulars. Non-disclosure of all material facts would disentitle an applicant from public appointment. If the appointing authority does not take a decision despite knowing such withholding of relevant information by an applicant, a writ court may certainly interfere at the stage of selection. The fact that appellant was a serving employee in the PWD was not disclosed by him which vitiated his candidature. He further submits that awarding of 5 marks by the Selection Committee under the heading "teaching experience" was not at all justified since as per the guidelines of the Education Department relating to selection of Lecturer/Librarian, a total of 5 marks is earmarked under the heading "teaching experience", 1 mark for each completed year of teaching in a Government or deficit college. Since admittedly appellant was not a teacher in any Government or deficit college, awarding of 5 marks to him by the Selection Committee was not justified. While wholeheartedly supporting the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Since admittedly appellant was not a teacher in any Government or deficit college, awarding of 5 marks to him by the Selection Committee was not justified. While wholeheartedly supporting the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Chakraborty has placed reliance on the decisions of a Single Bench of this Court as well as of the Apex Court in Robin Chandra Kalita v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2015 (1) GLT 173 and Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 . 15. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 16. On going through the order passed by the learned Single Judge we find that learned Single Judge had taken the view that respondent No. 5 had tendered incorrect and false particulars in his application form which rendered his selection untenable. Accordingly, selection of the appellant was set aside. Relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is extracted hereunder :- "8. The aforesaid submissions have been noticed and relevant materials also perused. In view of the statement made on oath at paragaraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.5, there is not much to decide but to hold that the particulars given against serial no.10 of the Application Form of respondent no.5 was an incorrect and false statement. The letter addressed to the Principal of Rangia College by the respondent no.5 also makes it abundantly clear that the particulars at serial no.10,11 and 15 of the Application Form suffers from suppression of facts, inasmuch as, in the letter of the respondent no.5 dated 2.2.2015 he has himself admitted that he was holding a Government job at the time of making application for the post of Assistant Librarian at Rangia College. In so far as the allegation made in respect of the NOC, this Court refrains from making any comment on it. 9. The submission made by Mr. D. K. Sarmah also do not hold any water, inasmuch as, the Court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that the respondent no.5 had tendered incorrect and false particulars. The mere fact that there are at least five candidates who obtained higher marks than the writ petitioner cannot be a ground to deny relief to the petitioner and/or not to interfere with the selection procedure. 10. The mere fact that there are at least five candidates who obtained higher marks than the writ petitioner cannot be a ground to deny relief to the petitioner and/or not to interfere with the selection procedure. 10. The matter now rests with the law laid down by the Apex Court, which has been discussed in the case of Robin Chandra Kalita (supra). This Court while rendering the judgment in Robin Chandra Kalita (supra) relied upon three Apex Court judgments, particularly in the case of Monoj Kumar v. Government of NCT Delhi, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 702 . In the said case and in no uncertain terms the Apex Court held that if any candidate furnishes false or incomplete information or withdraws or conceals any material information in his application, he will be debarred from securing employment. Going further, the Apex Court also held that even if such applicant is already appointed, his services are liable to be terminated for furnishing false information. 11. The above judgment in Monoj Kumar (supra) clearly covers the instant case. As alluded to above, the application submitted by the respondent no.5, more particularly the particulars given against serial Nos. 10, 11 and 15 were incorrect/false. In view thereof, this Court's interference in the selection of the respondent no.5 stands warranted. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed by setting aside the selection so made for the post of Assistant Librarian at Rangia College, Rangia with further direction that fresh Advertisement be issued for filling up the said post at the earliest convenience of the concerned respondents." 17. We have carefully examined the judgment of the learned Single Judge but we are afraid; we can accept the reasoning of the learned Single Judge for more than one reason. Firstly, from the advertisement itself we find that there is no stipulation requiring the applicant to disclose previous employment or existing employment. The advertisement did not require that application should be submitted in the Standard Form as prescribed in the Assam Gazette Part-IX. The advertisement did not lay down any particular format of application form requiring disclosure of previous or existing employment. As already noticed above, while appellant submitted his application in Standard Form, respondent No. 1 submitted the same in a plain paper. It is true that appellant ought to have disclosed his occupation as against column 10, since he was an employee in the PWD. As already noticed above, while appellant submitted his application in Standard Form, respondent No. 1 submitted the same in a plain paper. It is true that appellant ought to have disclosed his occupation as against column 10, since he was an employee in the PWD. However, in our considered opinion, non-disclosure of such information in the absence of any stipulation in the advertisement would not render his application invalid. Had the appellant submitted his application form in a typed out plain paper like respondent No. 1, question of suppression of the above fact would not have arisen. That apart, it is for the appointing authority to assess the suitability of the selected candidates. But before such decision could be taken by the appointing authority or even examined by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, the writ petition was filed, which in our view was premature. The two citations relied upon by Mr. Chakraborty relate to termination of an employee from service on the ground of suppression of material information at the time of appointment. There is a subtle yet significant distinction between an appointing authority taking a decision to terminate the service of an employee on the ground of suppression of material information at the time of entry into service which is challenged by the aggrieved employee and lodging of complaint of such omission on the part of an applicant by an unsuccessful candidate. When the appointing authority takes a decision to terminate the service of the employee on such ground, scope of interference by the writ court in exercise of its power of judicial review in such decision would be limited. On the other hand, if the appointing authority takes a conscious decision that notwithstanding such omission an applicant is otherwise found suitable for appointment or the omission is not so serious, it is not for the writ court to substitute its view for that of the appointing authority. In any case the aforesaid stage is yet to reach, since the selection materials had not reached the Director of Higher Education for his consideration. On the related issue of award of marks under the heading "teaching experience", this is an aspect which was not gone into by the learned Single Judge and consequently, there was no finding to that effect by the learned Single Judge. On the related issue of award of marks under the heading "teaching experience", this is an aspect which was not gone into by the learned Single Judge and consequently, there was no finding to that effect by the learned Single Judge. In such circumstances, we would not like to make any observation on this grievance expressed by the respondent No. 1. 18. We notice from the materials on record that appellant had obtained the NOC from his current employer i.e. PWD on 23.07.2012 certifying that PWD has no objection if the appellant applies for any other job in any other department. In the affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge appellant had stated that the NOC was submitted before the selection had taken place. 19. In Jainendra Singh (supra), it was a case of termination of service of a constable in the Police Department who concealed certain relevant facts which he was called upon to disclose after his selection was finalised and after the order of appointment was issued. Here the Supreme Court culled out the cardinal principles from various decisions before granting relief to the aggrieved party. Amongst others, it has been held that what is required to be considered by the appointing authority is to satisfy itself as to the suitability of the applicant to the post having regard to the nature of crime alleged against the applicant when it is a case of suppression of registration of a criminal case at the time of his entry into service. 20. Therefore, we are of the unhesitant view that mere omission to mention about existing service of an applicant, that too, in the absence of any stipulation in this regard, would not render the application and consequential selection of such applicant invalid in the eye of law. This is a decision to be taken by the appointing authority considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. 21. Having regard to the above, appeal succeeds. Impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2016 is set aside. 22. Consequently, Director of Higher Education, Assam shall take the appropriate decision in accordance with law.