JUDGMENT G.C. Bharuka, J. There are two petitioners in the present case. Their prayer is for quashing of the order dated 28th October, 1988 (Annexure-2), which has been passed by the District Education Superintendent, Gaya (Respondent no. 2). 2. Both the petitioners were appointed as Assistant teachers in Middle schools and had respectively joined the assignments on 18.10.1982 and 4.4.1983. Subsequent to the joining to the post, it transpired to the authorities that the certificates of their qualifications on the basis whereof they had been appointed were forged. It may be stated here that for appointment as teachers in the elementary schools it was essential that the candidates must have undergone the teacher training course, as is evident from the Government Circular No. 4557 dated 15.12.1976, which has also been subsequently noted with approval in Circular No. 573 dated 5th March, 1983. 3. Without going into details at present, it is suffice to state that pursuant to a direction issued by this Court, the District Magistrate, Gaya himself undertook an enquiry to find out as to whether the certificates given by the two petitioners were forged or genuine. The District Magistrate, Gaya took all pains to serve the notices of enquiry on these two petitioners by personal service as well as by publication in the newspapers. He also personally verified the records of the respective institutions. The details of the enquiry held by the District Magistrate are contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. After such an elaborate enquiry the District Magistrate came to the conclusion that the certificates were forged. The learned senior counsel, Sri Ganesh Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has very fairly and rightly conceded before me that he cannot assail the findings of the District Magistrate. In the writ petition also neither the competence of the District Magistrate nor his findings have been assailed on any substantial ground. 4. The only objection, which has been sought to be taken on behalf of the petitioners is that Annexure-2 purports to be an order of dismissal and the District Education Superintendent, who has passed the order had no authority to pass such an order. 4. The only objection, which has been sought to be taken on behalf of the petitioners is that Annexure-2 purports to be an order of dismissal and the District Education Superintendent, who has passed the order had no authority to pass such an order. Without entering into the question whether the District Education Superintendent had the power to dismiss the petitioners or not, it is an undisputed fact that the teachers training certificate was a sine-qua-non for seeking employment as an Assistant teacher in the elementary schools. It is a matter of record that the certificates which were furnished for seeking employment were forged certificates. Therefore, in law the appointments stood vitiated and it bas to be deemed that the petitioners were never appointed as teachers in the elementary schools. Therefore, in such cases, the question of dismissal cannot arise. Since the very appointment to the post was obtained by playing fraud on the authorities, it had no legal sanctity. Therefore, the District Education Superintendent has rightly directed the petitioners to deposit the entire amount which they have received by way of salary. 5. Mr. Keshri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has rendered very able assistance to this Court in this case. 6. Even otherwise the petitioners, who are found to have played fraud and have tried to get public employment on the basis of forged documents are not entitled to any relief by this Court in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. 7. For all these reasons, I dismiss the present writ application. There will be no order as to cost.