ORDER Nagu, J. -- 1. This intra Court appeal preferred u/s 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails final order dated 30.11.2022 in W.P. No.26933 of 2022 passed by learned Single Judge while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dismissing the petition so far as it relates to appellants herein thereby upholding the cancellation of candidature of appellants for having failed in the PPT (Physical Proficiency Test) conducted for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in Police. 2. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition in question on the ground that appellants in response to the query, whether candidates have live employment exchange cards or not, answered “Yes”, despite none of appellants possessing live employment exchange card on the crucial date i.e. last date of furnishing application form (27.1.2021). Thus, the learned Single Judge in the given facts and circumstances held that appellants are guilty of suppressing material facts thereby dis-entitling them to appointment for having played fraud. The learned Single Judge also relied upon the written undertaking given by each appellants while filling up their application form, that in case of disclosure of any incorrect information, the candidature is liable to be cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard at length. 4. Short facts giving rise to the present case are that an advertisement dated 25.11.2020 was issued inviting applications for filling up 4000 vacancies in the cadre of Constable in M.P. Police. The appellants who were otherwise qualified while applying, were however in possession of employment exchange cards, the validity of which had expired. The written test held on various dates in the month of January, 2022 was successfully negotiated by appellants. During progress of second stage of recruitment comprising of Physical Proficiency Test (PPT), the appellants received through e-mail, renewal of their employment exchange cards. The appellants received call letters and thereafter participated in the PPT. The appellants cleared the PPT and were placed in the select list in the order of their merit ranking. However, no appointment orders were issued in favour of appellants. Instead, the appellants were shown as ‘Fail’ in GD PPT status vide impugned Annexure P/1 dated 12.11.2022. 4.1 The respondents/employer came out with the stand that possession of live employment exchange card was a mandatory condition. However, no appointment orders were issued in favour of appellants. Instead, the appellants were shown as ‘Fail’ in GD PPT status vide impugned Annexure P/1 dated 12.11.2022. 4.1 The respondents/employer came out with the stand that possession of live employment exchange card was a mandatory condition. Since appellants did not possess live employment exchange cards on the relevant date i.e. 27.1.2021 and more so, appellants suppressed this material fact, they are not entitled to seek entry into Government service, that too a uniformed one. 5. Before adverting to the process of adjudication, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant conditions of appointment in the advertisement vide Annexure P/4. Various clauses in the advertisement provided thus:- ^^11- mijksDr lHkh inksa ds fy, vH;fFkZ;ksa dk e/; Áns'k jkT; ds jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa thfor iath;u gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA** ^^v/;k;&1 1-4-5 vH;fFkZ;ksa dk e/; Áns'k jkT; ds jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa thfor iath;u gksuk vfuok;Z gSA** ^^v/;k;&2 2-1 ¼pkj½ mijksDr lHkh inksa ds fy, vH;fFkZ;ksa dk e/; Áns'k jkT; ds jkstxkj dk;kZy; esa thfor iath;u gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA** 2-2 ¼rhu½ vkosnd }kjk xyr tkudkjh fn;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa mudk vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tk ldsxkA 2-2 ¼rhu½ ;fn ckn esa ;g irk pyrk gS fd vkosnd }kjk xyr vFkok vlR; tkudkjh vFkok fdlh tkudkjh dks Nqik;k gS ,slh fLFkfr esa fdlh Hkh Lrj ij laLFkk Áeq[k@lacf/kr foHkkx ¼iqfyl eq[;ky;@bZdkbZ Áeq[k½ }kjk ijh{kk esa Áos'k@p;u@fu;qfDr fujLr dh tk ldsxhA ^^v/;k;&4 Lo&?kks"k.kk%& eSa ?kks"k.kk djrk gwa fd esjs }kjk vkosnu esa nh xbZ leLr tkudkjh\ iw.kZr% lR; gSA ;fn esjs }kjk nh xbZ tkudkjh fdlh Hkh Lrj ij >wBh ;k ik=rk ekinaM dh vko';drkvksa vuqlkj larks"ktud ugha ikbZ tkrh gS rks esjh mEehnokjh jn~n dh tk ldrh gSaA** vFkok I hereby declare that all statements made in this application are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. If any information being found false at any stage or not satisfying the eligibility criteria.” 6. In the backdrop of aforesaid provisions in the advertisement and the written undertaking submitted by appellants, the questions which fall for consideration are as follows : (i) Whether prescribing of condition of possession of live employment exchange card on the relevant date as a mandatory condition, was legal or valid? In the backdrop of aforesaid provisions in the advertisement and the written undertaking submitted by appellants, the questions which fall for consideration are as follows : (i) Whether prescribing of condition of possession of live employment exchange card on the relevant date as a mandatory condition, was legal or valid? (ii) Whether giving of wrong information in the application form by appellants that they are in possession of live employment exchange card on the relevant date amounts to playing fraud by appellants? (iii) In case prescribing of pre-condition of possession of live employment exchange card at the relevant point of time, is not mandatory in law, and had no relevance to the basic requisite eligibility criteria and suitability of a candidate, on the touch stone of Recruitment Rules, then whether appellants can suffer cancellation of their candidature? 7. To resolve the controversy in the instant case, it would be appropriate to first deal with question No.(i) supra. 7.1 This Court need not enter into prolixity of adjudicating the aforesaid question because the same has already been answered by the apex Court in various decisions as extracted below : Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others (1996) 6 SCC 216 “6. Having regard to the respective contentions, we are of the view that contention of the respondents is more acceptable which would be consistent with the principles of fair play, justice and equal opportunity. It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates.” Union of India and others v. Pritilata Nanda [ (2010) 11 SCC 674 ] “16. In our opinion, there is no merit in the arguments of the learned Additional Solicitor General. In the first place, we consider it necessary to observe that the condition embodied in the advertisement that the candidate should get his/her name sponsored by any special employment exchange or any ordinary employment exchange cannot be equated with a mandatory provision incorporated in a statute, the violation of which may visit the person concerned with penal consequence. 17. The requirement of notifying the vacancies to the employment exchange is embodied in the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (for short “the 1959 Act”), but there is nothing in the Act which obligates the employer to appoint only those who are sponsored by the employment exchange. Section 4 of the 1959 Act, which provides for notification of vacancies to employment exchanges reads as under : “4. Notification of vacancies to employment exchanges.—(1) After the commencement of this Act in any State or area thereof, the employer in every establishment in public sector in that State or area shall, before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, notify that vacancy to such employment exchanges as may be prescribed. Notification of vacancies to employment exchanges.—(1) After the commencement of this Act in any State or area thereof, the employer in every establishment in public sector in that State or area shall, before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, notify that vacancy to such employment exchanges as may be prescribed. (2) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, require that from such date as may be specified in the notification, the employer in every establishment in private sector or every establishment pertaining to any class or category of establishments in private sector shall, before filling up any vacancy in any employment in that establishment, notify that vacancy to such employment exchanges as may be prescribed, and the employer shall thereupon comply with such requisition. (3) The manner in which the vacancies referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be notified to the employment exchanges and the particulars of employments in which such vacancies have occurred or are about to occur shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) Nothing in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be deemed to impose any obligation upon any employer to recruit any person through the employment exchange to fill any vacancy merely because that vacancy has been notified under any of those subsections.” 18. A reading of the plain language of section 4 makes it clear that even though the employer is required to notify the vacancies to the employment exchanges, it is not obliged to recruit only those who are sponsored by the employment exchanges. In Union of India v. N. Hargopal this Court examined the scheme of the 1959 Act and observed : (SCC pp. 313 & 315, paras 4 & 6) “4. It is evident that there is no provision in the Act which obliges an employer to make appointments through the agency of the employment exchanges. Far from it, section 4(4) of the Act, on the other hand, makes it explicitly clear that the employer is under no obligation to recruit any person through the employment exchanges to fill in a vacancy merely because that vacancy has been notified under section 4(1) or section 4(2). In the face of section 4(4), we consider it utterly futile for the learned Additional Solicitor General to argue that the Act imposes any obligation on the employers apart from notifying the vacancies to the employment exchanges. In the face of section 4(4), we consider it utterly futile for the learned Additional Solicitor General to argue that the Act imposes any obligation on the employers apart from notifying the vacancies to the employment exchanges. … *** 6. It is, therefore, clear that the object of the Act is not to restrict, but to enlarge the field of choice so that the employer may choose the best and the most efficient and to provide an opportunity to the worker to have his claim for appointment considered without the worker having to knock at every door for employment. We are, therefore, firmly of the view that the Act does not oblige any employer to employ those persons only who have been sponsored by the employment exchanges.” 19. In K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao case a three-Judge Bench of this Court considered a similar question, referred to an earlier judgment in Union of India v. N. Hargopal and observed : (K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao case, SCC pp. 217-18, para 6) “6. … It is common knowledge that many a candidate is unable to have the names sponsored, though their names are either registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a deserving candidate is deprived of the right to be considered for appointment to a post under the State. Better view appears to be that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/establishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who haveapplied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. In addition, the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment should call for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio, television and employment news bulletins; and then consider the cases of all the candidates who haveapplied. If this procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be available to all eligible candidates.” By applying the ratio of the abovenoted judgments to the case in hand, we hold that the authorities concerned of the South-Eastern Railway committed grave illegality by denying appointment to the respondent only on the ground that she did not get her name sponsored by an employment exchange. 20. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. It was neither the pleaded case of the appellants before the Tribunal and the High Court nor was any evidence produced by them to prove that the Notification/Advertisement dated 31.1.1987 was sent to all the employment exchanges including the special employment exchanges in the State of Orissa. Before this Court also, no document has been produced to show that the advertisement was circulated to the employment exchanges in the State. In this backdrop, it is not possible to approve the stance of the appellants that the respondent was not appointed because she did not get her candidature sponsored by an employment exchange. 21. We also agree with the High Court that once the candidature of the respondent was accepted by the authorities concerned and she was allowed to participate in the process of selection i.e. the written test and viva voce, it was not open to them to turn around and question her entitlement to be considered for appointment as per her placement in the merit list on the specious ground that her name had not been sponsored by the employment exchange. In our considered view, by denying appointment to the respondent despite her selection and placement in the merit list, the appellants violated her right to equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution.”(Emphasis supplied) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER VS ROSHNI SAHU 2017 STPL 13527 Chhattisgarh (F.B.) “3. There are two questions which arise. In our considered view, by denying appointment to the respondent despite her selection and placement in the merit list, the appellants violated her right to equality in the matter of employment guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution.”(Emphasis supplied) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ANOTHER VS ROSHNI SAHU 2017 STPL 13527 Chhattisgarh (F.B.) “3. There are two questions which arise. The first question is whether the State which issued the advertisement containing a condition that the applicant for the job should be on the live registration of the Employment Exchange, despite no such proof having been given along with the application has allowed the applicant to appear in the written test as well as interview, can be permitted to reject the candidature of such candidate after he has been found eligible to be selected on merit? 4. The second question is whether the State can impose such a condition that only those who are on the live registration of the Employment Exchange can be considered for appointment? 9. As far as the present cases are concerned, in Writ Appeal No. 411 of 2014 the advertisement was issued on 7.2.2013. Last date for submission of application was 23.2.2013 and at the time when the application was submitted the respondent-applicant was not registered with the Employment Exchange. After she submitted her application, she got herself registered with the Employment Exchange on 25.3.2013. Despite the fact that she was not registered, the appellantState permitted her to appear in the examination. She was successful in the written test. Only after she was found eligible for employment, was an objection raised that since her name was not on the live registration of the Employment Exchange at the time when the application for the post was filed her candidature was rejected. 10. As far as Writ Appeal No. 360 of 2014 is concerned, the advertisement was issued on 28.4.2012 and the last date for submission of documents was 31.5.2012. When the respondent applicant submitted his application he was not registered with the Employment Exchange. He however got himself registered on 28th September, 2012. Despite the fact that he was not registered with the Employment Exchange he was permitted to appear in the written test. When the respondent applicant submitted his application he was not registered with the Employment Exchange. He however got himself registered on 28th September, 2012. Despite the fact that he was not registered with the Employment Exchange he was permitted to appear in the written test. After he was successful in the written test he was permitted to appear in the interview and in fact in the first select list his name was mentioned as one of the successful candidates but later on an objection was raised that he was not registered with the Employment Exchange at the time when the application was filed and therefore his candidature was cancelled. 13. In this view of the matter, the cases of the petitioners will have to be accepted and therefore it is not necessary for us to enter into the second question and the decision thereof is left open.q 14. In view of the above discussion, Writ Appeal Nos. 411 and 360 of 2014 are dismissed and Writ Petition (S) Nos. 3336 and 3334 of 2015 are allowed. The Petitioners in the Writ Petition (S) Nos. 3336 and 3334 of 2015 be considered for appointment if otherwise eligible.” 7.2 In view of law laid down by the apex Court it is obvious that registration in the employment exchange is not a mandatory requirement for public employment. Thus, the corollary that follows is that the right to be considered for public employment, which is a fundamental right under article 16 cannot be curtailed or denied merely because the candidate concerned is not registered in the employment exchange. Further corollary that follows is that prescribing of a condition in the advertisement ofpossession of live employment exchange card on the relevant date, is notonly unnecessary and irrelevant but also unlawful especially when it castsadverse shadow upon the right of a particular candidate who is otherwise eligible to be considered and appointed to public employment. 8. Once this Court holds as aforesaid, that the condition of having a live registration with employment exchange is not mandatory, then the ancillary question which arises is that whether cancelling the candidature of appellants for having furnished wrong information in regard to the said irrelevant and unlawful condition, was legal and valid on the part of the employer or not ? 8.1 No doubt it is incumbent upon every candidate, in view of the declaration given by her/him that furnishing wrong information entails cancellation of candidature, but every act of suppression or wrong information may not lead to cancellation of candidature. It all depends upon the relevance and impact of suppression upon the eligibility, suitability, competence and character of the candidate. 8.2 Giving wrong information in regard to essentials which enable the recruiting/appointing authority to decide upon the eligibility, suitability and fitness of the candidate concerned, can certainly lead to cancellation of candidature. However, if the subject matter of information in regard to which wrong disclosure has been made, is not essential and foundational to the decision making process to decide about the eligibility and fitness of the candidate for appointment, then such wrong disclosure may not prejudice the candidate. 8.3 The reason for taking the aforesaid view is that in the application form, to be filled by the candidate, there are various informations required. Some of these informations are relatable to the eligibility criteria under the Rules, character antecedents of the candidate concerned and other ancillary and incidental informations. These essential conditions which relate to educational qualification, physical attributes and character of the candidate concerned are decipherable on the basis of information furnished by the candidate concerned. Thus, need arises for such information regarding these essential attributes to be correct. If there is any mistake or error or misinformation or wrong information in regard to these essential attributes of a candidate then the recruiting/appointing agency is well within it’s jurisdiction to cancel the candidature. 8.4 However, there are certain informations which are not essential for being unrelatable to the attributes of eligibility, fitness & suitability of a candidate for public employment. 8.5. While cancelling the candidature of a candidate for furnishing wrong information, the recruiting/appointing agency is obliged to first find out as to whether the information which is the basis for cancellation, relates to essential attributes of a candidate or not. If such information relates to essential attributes, then the candidate would certainly be guilty of suppression and playing fraud. 8.5. While cancelling the candidature of a candidate for furnishing wrong information, the recruiting/appointing agency is obliged to first find out as to whether the information which is the basis for cancellation, relates to essential attributes of a candidate or not. If such information relates to essential attributes, then the candidate would certainly be guilty of suppression and playing fraud. On the other hand, if the recruiting/appointing agency finds that wrong information/mis-information/suppression, is in regard to attributes which are neither essential nor fundamental to the candidature, then the recruiting /appointing agency is required to undertake an enquiry to decide that the wrong information given is such which could have caused a dent in the eligibility, fitness and suitability of the candidate for a particular post or not ? 8.6 If the wrong information given (as is the case herein) is in regard to an attribute (possession of live registration certificate of employment exchange) which is not necessary for deciding the eligibility, suitability and fitness of a candidate concerned, then cancelling the candidature on this ground alone would be harsh. This Court is however conscious that it cannot go to the extent of saying that the recruiting/appointing agency would have no jurisdiction to cancel the candidature especially in the face of written undertaking signed by the candidate. 8.7 However, situation in the present case, appears to be a little different. The wrong information made by appellants in their application form relates not only to an attribute which is unrelated to essential qualification, physical attributes and suitability, but has been held by the apex Court in (1987) 3 SCC 308 [Union of India and others v. N. Hargopal and others] to be superfluous. In N. Hargopal (supra), the apex Court has gone to the extent of holding that the Employment Exchange Act, 1959 was promulgated not to restrict but to enlarge the field of choice to enable employer to choose the best and most efficient and to afford opportunity to all eligible persons to be considered for public employment without restricting the field of choice to only those are registered with the employment exchange. Moreso, the apex Court in Pritilata Nanda (supra), and K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao (supra), has also held that the right to be considered for public employment is a fundamental right which cannot be abridged by imposing any condition of compulsory registration in employment exchange. Moreso, the apex Court in Pritilata Nanda (supra), and K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao (supra), has also held that the right to be considered for public employment is a fundamental right which cannot be abridged by imposing any condition of compulsory registration in employment exchange. The apex Court thus came down heavily upon the cancellation of candidature for public employment merely on the ground of non-registration of the candidate concerned in employment exchange. It may not be out of place to mention here that the apex Court in Pritilata Nanda (supra), while dealing with situation which is somewhat similar to the one prevailing here, imposed cost of Rs.3.00 lacs on the Railway Administration/employer for depriving the candidate therein of public employment. 9. As regards the objection of the employer that appellants furnished incorrect information thereby dis-entitling them to public employment especially in uniformed service, is concerned, it is seen from the record that appellants had mentioned “Yes” in answer to the question as to whether they are in possession of live registration certificate from employment exchange. Thus, ostensibly the appellants gave wrong information. The assumption of fraud raised against appellants needs to be dealt with in depth, so as to understand the mindset of appellants at the time of filling up application form pursuant to advertisement. 9.1 The appellants undoubtedly were in possession of registration in employment exchange but the same had expired for want of renewal during Covid-19 Pandemic. It is also not disputed that before the second stage (PPT) of recruitment process began, the registration in the employment exchange had been renewed in respect of all appellants. It is further not disputed that possession of live registration in the employment exchange is not one of theessential eligibility or suitability criteria. In fact, the law laid down by the apex Court (supra), is otherwise. Thus, the criteria of having live registration with employment exchange could not have been prescribed as mandatory condition, non-fulfillment of which could have entailed cancellation of candidature. 9.2 Pertinently, every wrong information in the application form cannot be treated as a disqualification entailing cancellation of candidature/appointment. Nature of the information concealed/suppressed is required to be gone into. Further, the circumstances under which the candidate was compelled to give wrong information also need application of mind. This inquiry is necessary to ascertain the impact of concealment/suppression over the eligibility and suitability of the candidate. Nature of the information concealed/suppressed is required to be gone into. Further, the circumstances under which the candidate was compelled to give wrong information also need application of mind. This inquiry is necessary to ascertain the impact of concealment/suppression over the eligibility and suitability of the candidate. Thus, there cannot be a straight-jacket formula that any or every wrong information furnished by a candidate in the application form must lead to cancellation of candidature/appointment. 9.3 In the instant case as explained above, appellants had already applied for renewal of their registration, which materialized during the course of recruitment process. More so, possession of live registration with employment exchange is not an essential criteria qua eligibility/fitness/suitability of a candidate and thus cannot be raised as a legitimate ground for sustaining cancellation of candidature merely for furnishing wrong information in this regard. 10. No doubt, the scrutiny as regards eligibility/fitness/suitability of a candidate who seeks entry into uniformed service, is comparatively more stringent, however, Government service whether uniformed or nonuniformed is not a heaven where only angels can tread. This Court is supported in its view by the Apex Court decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramashanker Raghuvanshi and another [ (1983) 2 SCC 145 ]. Relevant extract of said judgment is reproduced below : “2 ...Is Government service such a heaven that only angels should seek entry into it ? We do not have the slightest doubt that the whole business of seeking police reports, about the political faith, belief and association and the past political activity of a candidate for public employment is repugnant to the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and entirely misplaced in a democratic republic dedicated to the ideals set forth in the preamble of the Constitution. We think it offends the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution to deny employment to an individual because of his past political affinities, unless such affinities are considered likely to affect the integrity and efficiency of the individual's service. To hold otherwise would be to introduce 'McCarthysim' into India. 'McCarthyism' is obnoxious to the whole philosophy of our constitution. 14 and 16 of the Constitution to deny employment to an individual because of his past political affinities, unless such affinities are considered likely to affect the integrity and efficiency of the individual's service. To hold otherwise would be to introduce 'McCarthysim' into India. 'McCarthyism' is obnoxious to the whole philosophy of our constitution. We do not want it.” 10.1 If the factual matrix attending herein is tested on the anvil of the aforesaid law laid down in Ramshankar Raghuvanshi (supra), it is obvious that having live registration with the Employment Exchange has no bearing with the eligibility and suitability of the candidate. However, misinformation furnished by the appellants may to some extent reflect lack of probity. 10.2 Thus, in the light of above discussion, considering the circumstances attending herein and that wrong information given related to an attribute having no nexus with eligibility, suitability qua the post concerned, this Court is of the considered view that there was no fraud played by appellants whilemisinforming that appellants had live registration with the employment exchange at the relevant point of time. 11. The tenability of the wrong information given by the appellants needs to be tested on the anvil of relevant recruitment rules contained in M.P. Police Regulations (Chapter I-Appointments and Enlistments). Clause 53 onwards in the said Chapter stipulates procedure for recruitment to the post of Constable. In none of the clauses contained in the said Chapter, there is any requirement of possession of live registration certificate from employment exchange as a pre-requisite for being eligible to be considered for appointment as Constable. Thus, even the said statutory recruitment rules do not envisage registration with the employment exchange. This makes it evident that registration with the employment exchange is not an essential criteria. 12. In view of above, the condition of possession with every candidate of live employment exchange registration card cannot be treated as a mandatory condition, non-compliance of which may lead to cancellation of candidature. 13. Moreover, in the instant case, the appellants seem to have given a plausible explanation that though they were all registered in the employment exchange but due to the onset of Covid 19 pandemic the renewal of registration was held up. It is also not disputed by the recruiting/appointing agency that the renewed live employment exchange card was produced by the appellants during the course of recruitment. 14. It is also not disputed by the recruiting/appointing agency that the renewed live employment exchange card was produced by the appellants during the course of recruitment. 14. This Court thus has no hesitation to hold that cancelling the candidature of appellants for disclosing wrong information in regard to a condition which was unrelated to essential attributes of eligibility and fitness cannot be upheld. 15. Consequently the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated dated 30.11.2022 passed in W.P. No.26933 of 2022 qua the appellants herein and the order of cancellation of candidature of appellants are set aside. 15.1 Thus the respondents are directed to re-consider the candidature of appellants and proceed to issue appointment order in favour of appellants in case there is no legal impediment, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 60 days. 16. With the aforesaid directions, the writ appeal stands allowed.