WA 57/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.R.SARMA (Amitava Roy,J) The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is comprised of th e judgment and order dated 8.3.2010 passed in WP( C) No.2695/2009 and the order dated 2.8.2010 in Review Petition No.50/2010. We have heard Mr AM Mazumdar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr AR Bhuyan, Advocate and Mr RC Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent who has entered ap pearance through a caveat. The caveat stands discharged. The appellant, is a body corporate established under the Banking Compa nies Act (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act,1969 ( for short, hereafte r referred to as the ’Act’). A post of Watchman having fallen vacant in its Bes seria Branch, a process was initiated for filling up the same. The Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Govt. of Assam was requested to sponsor Ex-Servicemen candida tes for such recruitment. The Civil Educational Qualifications for the post wer e enumerated in the letter dated 3.11.2007 to the said effect as hereunder - Civil Educational Qualifications. Pass in 8th Standard /Class or its equivalent but the candidate should n ot have passed 10+2 examination or its equivalent (12th Standard/Class) [No relaxation for SC/ST candidates ] In terms of the above, any candidate having passed 10+2 examination or i ts equivalent 12th Standard/Class was ineligible to apply or to be considered fo r the post. The Zila Sainik Welfare Office, Sonitpur, Tezpur forwarded two lists of candidates out of which the appellant Bank short listed 9, who according to it, met the eligibility criteria and the interview was conducted on 8.4.2008. The ap pellant bank permitted the respondent herein to participate in the interview an d on the culmination of the process, he was asked to fill up an Attestation Form as per the recruitment policy of the appellant Bank. In the Attestation Form, i t was clearly mentioned that any incorrect information may lead to disqualific ation of the candidate concerned. According to the Bank, the respondent in the said form disclosed of having passed HSSLC from Tangla College. Eventually, he was appointed as an Watchman on probation for six months by o rder dated 11.9.2008 by the Regional office at Guwahati. The Central office of the Bank, however, on a scrutiny of all relevant documents being of the view tha t the respondent had suppressed and/or misrepresented with regard to his academi c qualification, by communication dated 25.4.2009 terminated his services on the ground of mis-representation/suppression of facts that he had passed Class 12 s tandard while applying for the post of Watchman. Being aggrieved, the respondent approached this Court challenging his terminati on. By judgment and order dated 8.3.2010 the learned Single Judge interfered t herewith on two grounds -(1) the facts and circumstances did not demonstrate any mis-representation or suppression with regard to his academic qualification;(2 ) the termination of his services was penal in nature and was not preceded by a ny opportunity of hearing and was thus violative of the principles of natural j ustice. The appeal bank being aggrieved, submitted an application for review of the said determination relying chiefly on a document submitted by the responden t on 10.9.2008 which according to it, clearly mentioned that he had passed SSLC (equivalent to be HSLC or matriculation ) with the assertion that he had disco ntinued the studies thereafter. The appellant bank sought to assert that this c learly demonstrated the conduct of the respondent to suppress and/or misrepresen t the facts pertaining to his academic qualification to secure the appointment. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 31.8.2010 di smissed the review application. Mr Mazumdar has assidulously argued that having regard to the prescribed academic qualification for the post and the inconsistent stands of the respond ent as demonstrated by the document dated 10.9.08 and the Attestation Form it i s apparent that he had resorted to suppression and/or mis-representation of fac ts for misleading the appellant bank to secure his appointment and thus the orde r of termination is valid. In any case , as the appointment order of the respond ent is opposed to the conditions of eligibility prescribed by the Bank, the t ermination of his service ought not to have been interfered with. Mr Saikia, in reply has argued that the mention of ’SSLC’ by the respondent in his document dated 10.9.08 was by way of an inadvertent mistake and the alphabe t ’H’ which ought to had appeared on the left of ’S’ got omitted. The learned c ounsel has further urged that it being apparent from the Attestation Form submi tted by the respondent, that he had mentioned his academic qualification to be class XII passed, there is no suppression and/or misrepresentation of facts an d that therefore, the impugned judgment and order ought not to be interfered wit h. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record more particularly, the document dated 10.9.08 and the Attest ation Form indicated hereinabove, we are unable to persuade ourselves that the respondent’s assertion of suppression/misrepresentation vis a vis his academic qualification was with an intention to obtain his appointment to the post of Wa tchman in the Besseria Branch office of the appellant bank. A bare reading of the contents of the document dated 10.9.08 demonstrate s a confused state of mind of the respondent and the same does not in unequiv ocal terms indicate any deliberate intention on his part to withhold from the a ppellant bank, his academic qualification of having passed HSSLC examination. In that view of the matter, the findings of the learned Single Judge ag ainst the suppression/misrepresentation of facts by the respondent ought to be u pheld. The fact that the respondent had not been afforded any opportunity of hea ring before his service was terminated, is a matter of record. Without making a ny comment on his eligibility to hold the post of Watchman as advertised for whi ch the process had been initiated, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the ter mination of the services of the respondent on the ground of suppression/misrepre sentation of facts vis a vis academic qualification is not tenable. The impugned order dated 8.3.2010, according to us, has been rightly interfered with by th e learned Single Judge. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. No costs.